Re: OT: Typical Globlist

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.