Tippaporn

This is the headline from the DailyMail: Man who saved his house from LA wildfires using only a garden hose - while his neighbours properties were razed to the ground No mention in the article of protective gear and a mask. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14275895/la-fire-man-save-house-garden-hose.html Nor have I found any other article which mentions that Mr. Carr had "protective gear and a mask". You didn't watch the video then. He states in it what protective gear he had. Always keep in mind the old adage of never believing everything you read.

Lovely post, Lacessit. I'm sure you're very proud of your common sense son, and deservedly so. Give him thumbs up from this poster the next time you talk with him. As to your question, I doubt it. The fact that these folks live in a high risk area for fires and not only take zero precautions but also build with materials conducive to easily ignite is beyond me. I guess it comes from the impoverished attitude of leaving your safety in the hands of others. In this case, government. My personal opinion is that government should never take on the function of keeping people safe. I full well understand that at first blush that statement will sound ridiculous and appear to be the height of irresponsibility but once deeply pondered on you'll understand it's exactly why it's bad policy.

I've raised the point about variables below. It's a fair question, and it needs to be accounted for. It's only too well known that a single piece of new information can completely invalidate a theory. Or, what was once considered Fact. With a capital F, of course. Which is why, in my humble estimation, it's is not prudent to fall into a paradigm in which questions need no longer apply. I understand you're making a distinction between beliefs and facts. So I'll once again repost one of my favourite Samuel Clemens quotes: “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.” ― Mark Twain Therein lies the rub. Once convinced that a thing is true then questioning what you believe to be true is nothing short of lunacy. Right? But how could you ever know whether something you think is true really isn't? Questioning. Anyone and everyone has their beliefs which they consider to be true. And a plethora of facts to back that truth up with. I wish things were truly black and white but my experience taught me that it's rarely the case. My advice? When you find yourself stopping any questioning you know you're in trouble.

You must understand, Lacessit, that it's a fact for you. But not for everyone. There are scientists who strongly disagree and have made quite rational arguments countering climate change claims. And I should be very specific and say "human induced" climate change, for no one disagrees with the fact that the climate is in constant flux. As long as there is contentious debate then, to be fair, no side gets to claim their theories are fact. Until such time as there is definitive proof beyond a reasonable doubt then, sorry to say, it's all in the realm of belief. It's not to say, though, that your belief cannot be true. But until proven conclusively it is considered belief. Perhaps one day you'll be vindicated and you'll get to say, "I told you so." Until then, show respect for others who believe otherwise, for whatever reasons. You cannot fairly disparage them as long as doubts remain. One point I'd like to raise with you, and other human induced climate change proponents, is the aspect of honesty. For those who believe in human induced climate change are quick to throw out the "95% of scientists agree" argument, as even that percentage has been up for debate. The true percentage aside, it's a dishonest argument for one solid reason: it's a well known logical fallacy. The ad populum fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone claims something is true because many people believe it is. It's also known as the bandwagon fallacy, appeal to popularity, or appeal to numbers. Put simply, it is the fallacy in which it is argued that consensus equates to truth. It's a blatant falsity. I'd be very wary about using false arguments to simply bolster your position. That risks credibility. For if one is willing to use a known false argument once then the question naturally begs, what other false arguments are being used. If too many false arguments are used then your credibility is lost forever. Just a word of fair warning.

Nothing ever comes of inquiries if they are stacked with those who don't want the truth to come out. They become performative circus entertainment to assuage the people's anger until it all becomes memory holed. The U.S. Congress is famous for holding hearings that end with nothing more than reports. Reports filled with information that had been uncovered by investigative journalists years earlier and had long been common public knowledge. We're dealing with politics, after all. The most disreputable profession known to man and older than prostitution. I understand your point of view but I've never been one to throw their hands up in the air in hopelessness. Mighty deeds have been accomplished through sheer determination, will, and the belief that it can be done. Heaven and earth seem to move in your direction at those times. Apollo 13 was a classic example. I absolutely agree. Anyone choosing to live in a high risk area for fire would be prudent to become as knowledge as one can and take preventative action beforehand. John Carr was one such person who had protective gear and a mask. My home would certainly be stocked with protective gear. In my opinion, local schools should teach on the subject. I absolutely disagree. California and it's political class have long been criticised about their land management policies, amongst other related policies. These fires proved them right. Whilst it may be true that some are trying to score cheap political points there's another valid possibility that those who claim the "cheap shot" seem to miss, either unintentionally or intentionally. It's common knowledge that bad politicians use this reasoning to steer people away from scrutinizing their abject failures, or even criminality, in order to cover their azzes. Which is it? Given everything known about Dem politicians and the fact that criticism have raged for years I would guarantee this narrative is purposeful and coordinated in order to distract. My advice? Be frickin' careful about jumping on someone's bandwagon before you think things through for yourself. They'll be sure to take you for a ride.

Thanks for the acknowledgement. It's appreciated.

Thanks for the reply. Teaching requires tons of patience. Most don't have a scientific education. Their ignorance is natural. It is what it is. An understanding and acceptance of that current reality would be enough to alleviate your frustrations. My contention has always been this: The entire world's ecosystem is incredibly complex. For a quite a number of valid reasons I highly doubt that science understands more than a sliver of it. Simply forecasting tomorrow's weather is still beyond science. Why? Due to too many unknown and ill understood variables. Especially the interactions between all of those variables. As all systems are interconnected each affects the others in whatever degree in a dazzling display of complexity. One of my major gripes about those who believe in human caused climate change is the lack of questioning. As I've said before, questioning climate change is verboten. It's in direct contradiction to the basic tenet of science that questioning should be never ending. In my view, once questioning stops then one becomes locked into a paradigm. Breakthroughs in understanding are neigh on impossible in such an environment. It's counter productive. I think that's a fair and honest assessment and should be intelligently addressed. In fact, I think both of the points I raised should be addressed and certainly not ridiculed simply because they have the potential to put someone's strongly held beliefs in doubt.

I’ve read many of these graphs and data, none have ever proven that humans caused climate change, and many of these studies have broad variabilities, including core samples, which are a minor ancillary. As far as having a closed mind, highly doubt it, I’m not the one here buying into something that hasn’t been proven. This subject is about the cali fires, please prove to me that human caused climate change is responsible for these fires, please, just show us. @Lacessit I think novacova's request is more than reasonable. I, too, have asked the same of another poster, to which there was no reply. Theory and speculation isn't good enough to definitively blame it on human caused climate change. It needs to be concrete evidence showing unquestionably all of the links.

This YT account has multiple videos chronicling the devastation. I heard estimates of 20,000+ homes and other structures. The magnitude is truly mind boggling. What's even more mind boggling, at least to me, are all those who don't believe there should be any accountability whatsoever. Nope, no major screw ups at all. Everyone did a splendid job on every aspect of preventing this type and scale of disaster. 𝗧𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗢𝗙 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗔𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: Pacific Palisades Fire Reduces Businesses and Homes to Rubble

Yes. The problem is you. I guess you'll just have to accept there are people who don't suffer fools gladly. Let's see here . . . A guy goes out of his way to entreaty another guy to engage in civil discourse on a topic. The other guy responds with an insult. They guy asks what the problem is. The other guy never responds. You butt in for no other reason than to add your own insult in the direction of the guy who is attempting to cajole the belligerent into civility in order to peacefully resolve differences between the two. Dude, are you sure you have your priorities straight? Best you double check.

I'll start with your last statement first. I fully expect more ad hominem attacks from you, the most common form of dishonest argument. Just so you understand me properly I'll explain my approach to posters. If they're respectful and polite and honest - which doesn't necessarily equate to being right - and are open minded then I will reciprocate in kind. If they're disrespectful, impolite, dishonest and immediately dismiss ideas that don't fit their world view then I'll put them in their place via constructive criticism. I let bygones be bygones so anytime a nasty, belligerent poster decides to become civil I'll lay previous grievances aside and start fresh. What you fully expect to be my response isn't what's going to happen. You posted honestly, politely and respectfully. For that I commend you. You took my advice and chose to educate rather than harangue. It was a wise choice. As to ad hominem, which in debating is used to attack an opponent's character in one form or another in order to invalidate their arguments, which can be quite valid. I don't use it. Honest, constructive criticism works much better. So don't confuse criticism with ad hominem. Back to the topic and your post. I've asked you this question before, to which I never got a reply. Which, btw, is no unusual with you. So the laws of thermodynamics are causing the warming of the earth, and all of the effects caused by that warming. So you state. Were the laws of thermodynamics then inoperative during the ice ages? If those laws cause warming then what laws supercede them to cause cooling? Since you have the scientific training and 50 years of background then what's the answer to a reasonable question spurred by some common sense thinking?

But it's as I explained to Lacessit. Climate change is not settled science. Agree or disagree. Like it or not. Your personal inclinations on the matter don't change the fact. Also, to reiterate that true science never stops questioning. Especially on issues that are not definitively proven. As long as there is robust disagreement then climate change believers do not have the right to impose their belief in it unto others. Yet this is what they do. Of course they're going to get pushback for their impositions. Now I'm being quite polite about it with you. Can you at least reciprocate and talk civilly without deriding those who believe differently. Isn't that what you yearn for on the LGBQT+ rights issue? So why behave in reverse?

Jingthing, is there a problem that prevents you from engaging in a civil dialogue?

The man defied your intellect and was successful. Can't argue with success, can you? The bottom line is all that matters. I've told you before, Lacessit, the intellect is not the only problem solver available to us. It's been said that if the earth's orbit around the sun was strictly dependent on the intellect the orbit wouldn't last a nanosecond. I understand, there are concepts which form the basis of the statement and make it true of which are entirely foreign to you. So I don't expect you to understand or agree. Just mentioning it to make you aware that there's much more in play than simply your intellect. Hey, whatever happened to responding to some of my other posts? You seemed to drop them and move on. Too much for you?

Your woke definition meaning beyond your conprehension. Per Wikipedia: Beginning in the 2010s, it came to be used to refer to a broader awareness of social inequalities such as racial injustice, sexism, and denial of LGBTQ rights. Woke has also been used as shorthand for some ideas of the American Left involving identity politics and social justice, such as white privilege and reparations for slavery in the United States. It's plain English and not difficult to comprehend. Granted, the definition has been stretched over time to include other bizarre leftist ideas. The definition is actually very inclusive. Climate change, for instance, has been welcomed to the list of what woke is. That's good, no? But if you want to be a purist on the definition then woke is still an appropriate and fitting term as Vlad starts drifting into inclusion and exclusion and evil whiteness. Now those are most definitely social inequality concepts. Do you agree, Jingthing? Feel free to make yourself clear about your misunderstandings.

So politics created hurricane force winds and droughts that flamed the fires across whole towns? You'll be saying next it was the sexual orientation of the fire chief there next that failed to control the flames. Dude, can you understand the English language? Tell me, how are you able to twist the plain meaning of words and come up with some totally different meaning? Seriously. People may not know it but I have a passion for human psychology. Most fascinating subject, I've found. You've made yourself a case study on how people can pervert clear and concise meanings to fit their preconceived notions. That's fascinating. My noodle is very much worried about yours. Edit: Apologies for calling you a dude, Sheryl. Didn't find out you changed your nick 'till just now.

The problem is when you assert your beliefs as fact. Climate change, for instance, is not settled science. You will never agree with that despite the fact that you know science is supposed to never stop questioning. You've stopped. That's antithetical to one of the basic tenets of the science you worship so much.

Well, Hawaiian hits the nail on the head, there. Liberal progressives have this nasty defining characteristic of thinking that their beliefs aren't beliefs but the word of God. An entity they don't believe in, btw, but they unashamedly borrow from religion in that sense nonetheless. A liberal progressive is always right. No matter what. Which is why they can never, ever concede a point. Or admit they were wrong. And Hawaiian's observation is quite astute. You are not allowed to challenge a liberal progressive. For if you do they will unleash holy hell on you and try to destroy you in any way they can. They're very vicious people in that regard. They will falsely accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist simply for asking questions and disagreeing. They will accuse you of spreading dis/misinformation simply because it is counter to their beliefs. I once tried to take a discussion with you to a PM and we didn't get very far. You couldn't restrain yourself from being demeaning and insulting even after I broached the subject and suggested we discourse civilly. You haven't changed, Lacessit.

Here: And since Newsom is fully on board with DEI, and it certainly played a role in this disaster, here:

Keep avoiding addressing all the other policy failures mentioned. Keep the convo where you feel comfortable. I don't claim to know what's a lie and what's not on Newsom's list. But the devil is always in the details. How were all those funds spent and on what specifically, would be questions that should be asked to see whether or not Newsom's bragging is merely a pretty facade to fool people. But that's your problem. You simply take what's listed on there at face value and never bother looking into any of it any further. So you end up assuming that all is well and good. Now to me that's a dumb azz approach. And it's exactly what politicians expect the plebes to do . . . look no further. It's akin to sticking one's head in the sand. Of course if you're a partisan over everything else then you wouldn't really want to know if there are any grimy, deceptive or even criminal details. Party comes first. Politicians get away with dirty dealing until they don't . They do until someone starts scrutinizing the finer details. Examples abound. And you're no stranger to them. Now that I've played fair and answered you then start addressing the other policy failures mentioned. I'll wait patiently.

Someone pass me a bucket, please. Better yet, why not point out what "mis/disinformation" is being perpetrated in the video. Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics Two intellectually-honest tactics There are only two intellectually-honest debate tactics: 1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts 2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic That’s it. Simple! The dishonest list is much longer. https://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics Your response, Lacessit, is amongst the much longer dishonest list. Scroll through the list and you'll find it. Anyway, it's a great reference which helps to sort out the dishonest posters from the honest ones.

I'm doing my best.

Exactly. When things go south in a big way then questions need to be asked and answers gotten. And the questions will be directed at those in charge. If those in charge know that the questions and answers will expose them as incompetent then of course they'll try to protect themselves from appropriate blame. And consequences. One of those ways is to cry rivers of tears that asking hard questions equates to politicising. It's a fallacy of logic. But some, who don't understand logic, fall for it. I guess you did, Lacessit.

Isn't it common sense to ensure you have enough pumps to be able to pump the required amount of water from lower levels to higher levels? That this failure should come as a surprise to anyone is an unacceptable excuse. The U.S. is world class in engineering and any competent engineer could have calculated the results of too few pumps. As to the reservoirs, are there enough of them and ere they located where they needed to be? Joe Siracusa points out that seven planned reservoirs were cancelled. Were some of those planned to be built on higher ground? Lots of questions to be asked and answered. And yes, the incompetents need to go. DEI or otherwise.

Now that's woke. He went off on so many different tangents that there didn't seem to be any point or conclusion. At the end he seems lost in thought and then abruptly ends the video with, "enough." LOL