Re: OT: Typical Globlist

On 18/01/2025 6:05 pm, john larkin wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 17:54:24 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
 

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:53:30 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
>

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 11:14:10 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
>

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 17:49:41 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
>

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 07:47:36 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
>

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:01:30 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>

... Los Angles has a perfectly competent fire department,
which did all that was humanly possible. Sadly, they can't do anything
about anthropogenic global warming

>
Part of the problem was too many trees and other plants close together -
I don't notice anyone campaigning about that.
>
Trees don't destroy CO2, they simply store it and release it later,
either as CO2 or as methane.

>
Things that grow in California must get harvested or will burn. It's
been that way for millenia; the natives warned the Spanish about that.
When people put out small fires, as we have done for over a century
now, we add to the fuel load for giant firestorms. Blame Smokey The
Bear.
>
Not only are unnaturally dense forests great fuel, houses are even
better. That was obvious in the Oakland and Paradise and Lahaina
fires; rows of houses set one another on fire and the trees survived.
>
Pics show forests in California that are six times denser than they
were naturally, a century ago.
>
And why do people build insanely flammible houses, right next to other
insanely flammible houses? Our cabin in the mountains won't burn,
because it would be very hard to ignite, and because we keep the
landscape free of stuff that would burn a lot.
>
Let the insurance free market work.

>
Quite. Be very intersting to see how Pacific Pallisades and its
neighbouring suburbs look in a few years' time from now. I suspect the
area will be far less verdant!
Here's another uncomfortable fact for our Democrat supporters to chew
on: seems the worst fire was started by an illegal immigrant from
Mexico with a blowlamp and the 'Kenneth' fire was - again - set by
another illegal alien. We're constantly told these people enrich our
culture, but that's hard to swallow when you take a look at all those
square miles of ruins and ashes.
>
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-14/kenneth-fire-person-of-interest-is-a-convicted-felon-and-entered-country-illegally-ice-says
>
Explain *that* away, Bill.

>
The problem isn't ignition sources. There will always be ignition
sources. The problem is the insane flammibility of overgrown forests
and dense flammible housing.
>
Lots of the post-fire pics show rows of burned-out houses with green
trees alongside.
>
It's crazy when one ember will set fire to a thousand houses. And
fires jumping streets.
>
Why do people have houses with flammible roofs and flammible sides and
flammible attics and gutters full of leaves? Why have gutters at all?
>
One answer is govenment incompetance, stupid building codes and
subsidized fire insurance.

>
>
Houses set houses on fire:
>
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/aea8f5fed828e3195db8f5a4995f983d6a553ad6/0_6_4944_2967/master/4944.jpg?width=1300&dpr=2&s=none&crop=none
>

>
Those houses - right on the beach! HTH could they possibly have been
destroyed?

 If even one house had flammible grass or gutters full of leaves, and
one ember ignited it, it exploded into flame and the radient heat set
off all its neighbors sequentially.
 Pretty dumb. Times a few thousand.

The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.

The assumption seems to be that when this happens, a fire truck will
show up and hose things down before all the houses burn up. But that
solution doesn't scale.

John Larkin makes a dumb assumption, then gets critical because the people who write building codes haven't acted on that dumb assumption.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney