5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

This is exactly why the quake was amplified in in Bangkok compared to nearby regions.

 

Seismologists sometimes call this problem the "Mexico City Effect" - and Bangkok is often used as another example in modern textbooks because the physics are almost the same.

 

 

Depending upon how the quake occurred impacts the type of wave and even the direction of dissipation of energy impact how the quake is felt at distance.

 

The magnitude of the 7.7Mw estimated to be between 4-5 in Bangkok due to the dissipating of energy through the bed rock, which was then amplified by the 'basin effect' of Bangkoks 'bowl' lakebed setting....  effectively like shaking a bowl of jelly.

 

In layman's terms the quake in Bangkok was a 4-5 LM Magnitude wobble, where as in area's such as Pattaya and throughout the Korat Plateau the energy of the all waves would have dissipated within the older much harder formations.

 

 

Much of how Bangkok was impacted also depends upon how the waves travel, the type of wave, and intensity each individual type, and direction of the movement. 

 

Body Waves (move through the inside of the Earth)

P-Waves (Primary Waves), these are fastest type of seismic wave and move in a push-pull (compressional) motion, like a slinky. These are the first to be detected by seismographs.

 

S-Waves (Secondary Waves), slower than P-waves, move in a side-to-side (shear) motion, perpendicular to the direction of wave travel. These cause more damage than P-waves because of their stronger movement.

 

Surface Waves (move along the surface of the Earth)

Love Waves, which move the ground side-to-side, like a snake, only travel along the surface. Usually cause a lot of damage to buildings.

 

Rayleigh Waves, which move the ground in a rolling, elliptical motion (like ocean waves). Slowest of all seismic waves, and cause both up-and-down and side-to-side shaking.

 

 

 

Though one may not have a degree in this science one can easily agree based on common sense alone.

Since an earthquake results in the release of energy and that energy travels as a wave then the intensity of that wave is measurable at any given point.  To use the Richter scale as a measurement may not be technically correct but the amount of energy that Bangkok experienced would be measurable on some sort of scale.

Intraplate earthquakes are rare but have occured.  The 2001 Gujarat earthquake measured 7.6 on the Richter, resulted in extensive structural damage, and killed over 20,000.

In 2001, a large intraplate earthquake devastated the region of Gujarat, India. The earthquake occurred far from any plate boundaries, which meant the region above the epicenter was unprepared for earthquakes. In particular, the Kutch district suffered tremendous damage, where the death toll was over 12,000 and the total death toll was higher than 20,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraplate_earthquake

Closer to home, the recent earthquake 95 km from Luang Prabang on Thu Nov 21, 2019, far from the nearest fault line, was an interplate earthquake measuring 6.2.

The first earthquake I had ever experienced in Thailand was located ENE of Ban Mone, Laos, 747 km  due north of Bangkok, on 16 May 2007 at 08:56, and clocked in at 6.3.  I can still recall my wife sitting next to me in our 9th floor condo as we both experienced the woozy sensation caused by the almost imperceptible swaying of our building.

https://asc-india.org/lib/20070516-laos.htm#:~:text=A strong earthquake struck western,peninsula causing some minor damage.

Any claim that an interplate earthquake is an impossibility for Bangkok as the epicenter would be false.  Unless the claim was made by God.  We mere mortals are confined to speculation only.  It is as improbable as it is probable.

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

15 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

John Carr was one such person who had protective gear and a mask. 

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.

35 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin in 1974. That led to a big revamp of building codes.

 

Ash Wednesday and Black Saturday have also led to many changes.

 

My son lives in a very fire-prone area, among 40 metre tall eucalypts. He clears leaf and stick litter every spring.

 

He has a house of brick veneer, cement tile roof. He has a fire-fighting pump, capacity 490 litres/minute. He has an independent water supply, capacity 70,000 litres. It has never been lower than 30,000 litres.

 

The house has a sprinkler system which covers the entire roof, and also windows facing the most vulnerable fire direction.

 

He was a member of the local volunteer fire brigade for about 10 years.

 

Comparing that level of preparation with Mr Carr and his garden hose, I still think he was a lucky idiot.

 

The question is, if/when Pacific Palisades rebuilds, will the houses be prepared like my son is? Or will it still be wooden houses and shingle roofs?

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.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

That fact is based on observation, such as ocean temperatures, sea level rise, heat cells, Greenland ice cap, Larsen ice shelf etc. etc. etc.

I've raised the point about variables below.

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

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.

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.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I don't disagree there should be questioning of beliefs.

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.

20 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Climate change is not a belief. It's a fact, 95% of scientists agree on that fact. Including people like me who are not even working in climate science.

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.

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am confident there will be multiple inquiries. Whether they achieve anything is a different question.

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.

18 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

There is the combination of fuel, wind, and dryness. As someone who has lived in a fire-prone region, and taken appropriate precautions, I can tell you radiant heat can ignite fires in trees from hundreds of metres away. There are also wind driven embers, which can start fires several kilometres away. Under those circumstances, the only thing firefighters can do is stay out of the way. How much fire-fighting capacity they have available becomes irrelevant.

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.

22 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Under those circumstances, building wooden houses with shingle roofs in the path of said risk borders on insanity.

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.

27 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

What I find really nasty is the attempt to score cheap political points, as the response to a massive tragedy.

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.

49 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Point taken, IMO answered in my previous post ( and yours )

Thanks for the acknowledgement.  It's appreciated.

36 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If I get combative with posters, it's because I get frustrated with an inability to acknowledge basic science. Sometimes, it is a wilful inability.

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.

39 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The laws of thermodynamics were operating back in the Ice Ages. The answer to your question lies in two main factors, the earth's orbit around the sun, and albedo.

 

During what are called Milankovitch cycles, the planet moves further away from the sun, and receives less solar radiation, It cools down so that snow and ice that would normally melt during summer in the high latitudes stays on the ground.

 

Albedo is reflectivity of radiation. Earth and rock absorb radiation, ice and snow reflect it back into space. Earth cools in a positive feedback loop.

 

There are other factors, such as volcanic eruptions contributing putting ash and dust into the atmosphere to add to cooling, and atmospheric CO2 concentration.

 

The basic point is the time frame. Ice Ages take millennia to form and disappear. We might even have been heading into one now, but three hundred years of mankind burning fossil fuels has well and truly upset the applecart.

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.

20 hours ago, novacova said:

20 hours ago, Lacessit said:

It's not a model, it's data derived from measurement. Scientists can measure CO2 levels 10,000 years ago, from ice cores.

 

You obviously have a closed mind on the topic, end of discussion.

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

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

21 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

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

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.

19 hours ago, Lacessit said:

OK,  You are challenging me to explain thermodynamics in layman terms. Here goes:

 

There are four thermodynamic laws. The ones that apply most to our lives are #1 and #2.

 

Global warming is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation. Climate change is an example of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

The laws of thermodynamics have no escape clauses. They are as immutable as Muslims believe the Koran is, and as unavoidable as the fact the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west.

 

Yet if I was to ask randomly selected persons to explain their understanding of the laws of thermodynamics without resorting to Google, I guarantee over 99% of the people would look blank.

 

Similarly, I would be drawing blanks if I asked people what albedo and clathrates are, and how they can affect the rate of climate change.

 

All the facts and evidence point towards global warming resulting from human activity, principally the burning of fossil fuels.

 

I’m annoyed because I trained for 4 years to be a scientist, then worked for almost 50 years in that capacity, and in research. I think I can be deemed to be impartial, as I have never received research funding for anything related to climate science. It’s absurd to think I am part of a global conspiracy.

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, in layman terms, states heat cannot pass from a colder body to a hotter body without work. When carbon dioxide and other gases such as methane absorb solar radiation, those molecules re-radiate solar energy as heat. The so-called greenhouse effect.

 

That heat has to go somewhere. It flows into the colder oceans, with a corresponding rise in temperature. Global warming.

 

The First Law of Thermodynamics, in layman terms, states all forms of energy are interchangeable. When we drive cars, we are exchanging the chemical energy in gasoline for heat and kinetic energy.

Similarly, turning on a TV converts electrical energy to light and sound.

 

Any meteorologist will tell you the higher the temperature of a body of water is, the more intense the wind velocity will be. The First Law of Thermodynamics, the conversion of heat energy to kinetic energy. Climate change.

 

What concerns scientists most in this time is the potential for a “butterfly effect”. The term was first used by Friedrich Schiller in a short story of the 18^th century, and refers to an insignificant event giving rise to catastrophic consequences elsewhere. Albedo and clathrates are first in line.

 

When I say no-one can beat the laws of thermodynamics, even AI agrees with me. This is what it has to say:

 

AI cannot beat the laws of thermodynamics. These laws are fundamental principles of physics that govern the behavior of all matter and energy, including the systems that AI operates on.

 

AI relies on physical systems: AI systems are ultimately based on physical hardware like computers and servers. These devices require energy to function and are subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Energy conservation: The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. AI systems, like any other system, must adhere to this principle.

 

Entropy and efficiency: The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. This means that no process can be perfectly efficient, and there will always be some energy lost as heat. AI systems are not exempt from this limitation.

 

While AI can be used to model and analyze thermodynamic systems, it cannot change the underlying physical laws that govern their behavior.

 

 

I fully expect more ad hominem attacks from you, the most common form of dishonest argument.

 

Have at it.

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.

On 1/14/2025 at 7:53 AM, Tippaporn said:

On 1/13/2025 at 12:20 PM, Lacessit said:

Ignorance be damned. Any person with an understanding of the laws of thermodynamics knows those laws are the cause of 240 gigatons a year of Greenland ice melting, of record heat cells in Australia, and of high winds.

 

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?

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Welcomed by whom? Morons? 

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

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

He's a lucky idiot.

 Fighting a fire with a garden hose is lunacy. One needs an independent tank water supply, flame proof clothing, a helmet, glasses, gloves, boots and a fire fighting pump capable of delivering over 400 litres/minute. Been there, done that when I built in a fire-prone zone.

 

What would he have done if the water supply failed to his garden hose?

 

He may be a hero to some. To me, he's a lucky idiot.

 

 

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?

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

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

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.

2 hours ago, WorriedNoodle said:

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

It was the policies of a political party which allowed the fires to destroy the homes.  Only rational cavemen understand that.

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.

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I try to distinguish between fact and opinion, mine as well as others. That's why I use the acronym IMO quite frequently.

 

IMO some posters are fact-free.

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.

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Entitlement to an opinion does not necessarily mean said opinion has any foundation of fact.

7 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

In other words everything you post is based on infallible facts and no one is allowed to challenge them.

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.

22 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Where did I defend him?

Here:

On 1/13/2025 at 9:41 AM, Will B Good said:

 

Can someone who knows what they are talking about comment on this?......

 

Is it a total pack of lies, the God honest truth or a serious distortion of the facts.

 

If it is the truth where does that leave you regarding the likes of Musk and his tweets?

 

FACT: The number of CalFIRE personnel has nearly doubled since 2019 (from 5,829 to 10,741)

FACT: CalFIRE’s budget has nearly doubled since 2019 ($2 Billion to $3.8 Billion)

LIE – These Wildfires are Caused by California’s Mismanagement of Forest Lands 

FACT: The budget for managing the forest (AKA “raking the forest”) is now TEN TIMES larger than it was when Governor Newsom took office. It was a $200 million annual budget in 2018. The state has now invested $2 billion, in addition to the $200 million annually.

FACT: California dramatically ramped up state work to increase wildland and forest resilience, as well as adding unprecedented resources to support wildfire response. California officials treated more than 700,000 acres of land for wildfire resilience in 2023, and prescribed fires more than doubled between 2021 and 2023.

 

 

 

 

http://www.californiafirefacts.com

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

On 1/12/2025 at 12:24 PM, Will B Good said:

 

So what evidence do you have that DEI has changed the effectiveness of the Fire Departments in California?.......clue....do not answer "look at the fires in LA".

7 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

So back to the original question....is everything Newsom stated an out and out lie? If so, how can he get away with that?

 

It's not like lying in US politics is acceptable......555

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.

54 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

56 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Another excellent video, riclag.  

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.

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

To correct some of the bull<deleted> that's posted.

I'm doing my best.