JCC What is God Trying to Tell California?

The drought was about the gay stuff the floods are about the weed stuff.

 

I shudder to think what shielding undocumented immigrants will bring the state.

 

So question... from what I can find on the Googles, California does very little back burning? Or, what I think you call controlled burning?

Is this true?

 

From what google is telling me, this is true.

Can anyone confirm?

 

As a resident of California, I can confirm it is true. California is not in the practice of having controlled burning. Why? The are numerous reasons that mostly involve environmental considerations. I mean, anytime there's a new land development that always has to be an environmental impact study. In short, California is too environmentally conscious (taking in ecosystems, wild life, air pollution, etc. into account before anything) to burn down trees for safety.

 

And California is too populous not to build homes in all the wrong places, exposing more and more people to wildfires and mudslides.

 

Yeah, the more desirable areas are too populous, like the Silicon Valley which is why home prices average around $1 million for a 3 bedroom house built in the 1960s. Not many Californians live in the most expansive and flat area of the state which is the Central Valley (the land between the coastal hills and Sierra Mountains) as it's mostly used for farm land and if not, looks like the Arizona desert. Moreover, there are not many well paying jobs in the Central Valley so people commute hours one way to the Bay Area for work. So more and more homes are built on the hills closer to the coast than inland.

So far, there hasn't been any massive mudslides this season, at least in Northern California. From what I could tell, most of the people the suffered from the wild fires in the Napa wine region are more fearful of toxic ash and materials flowing into the drains and sewage system.

 

So you're idiots, in other words?

Far be it for me to suggest, as a country that's enveloped in fire most years, that controlled burning will make it easier and actually reduce the pollutants released. Just keep watching California smoulder and say "well at least we stopped the smoke from going into the air that earlier time, thus still dumping the same net total of carbon and stuff into the atmosphere but in one giant go instead of in controlled stages and with minimal loss of life and property."

To answer the OP's question, I think the message is "DO CONTROLLED BURNING YOU UTTER PILLOCKS".

 

"I hate oranges"

 

Did you see the above comments? They don't backburn in California. They just sit there bewildered each year when their cities are on fire going 'if ONLY one could prevent this'.

Like with say, spiralling health insurance costs or gun crimes, they're just so confused as to solutions available to them.

 

but how are we going to cool the rest of the earth if we don't put up enough debris in the air?

 

Cities are NOT on fire.

As far as controlled burning in California as a preventative measure, it's not so simple to implement as I noted above there are environmental considerations (i.e. wild life, ecosystems, pollution, protected land) to consider as well as what jurisdiction of responsibility would these control burns would fall under; local, state or federal or even privately owned.

California does have laws that require homes and buildings built in fire dangers areas to have a protective perimeter around the structure to help prevent going up in flames in case of a wild fire. The problem is the high winds that spread the fire miles away. So even if there were protective controlled burns, any wild fire could spread beyond the controlled burn protective areas into urban areas as the Santa Ana winds could carry burning .

BTW, firefighters do employ controlled burning or back burning when battling wild fires as in the cases of the huge fires in 2017. Again, the problem was the wind blowing the fire over those fire lines.

 

I wouldn't trust SSP on this. He looks guilty to me.

 

You're right, what could Australians know about bushfires. California's got this covered. Environmental considerations which are meaningful prevent backburning, and can be employed to chastise the fire when it disregards them by devastating the environment anyway.

Controlled burning when the fire has started is sensible and not at all like closing a gate after a horse has bolted.

California's got such good policy ideas. It's a great place. So wise. So intelligent.

 

Also it looks like a lot of US states do controlled burning for both ecological reasons (it's very good at restoring ecological balance) as well as to prevent forest fires. So basically California is the exception; lots of juicy, oily eucalytps and idiots in charge.

lol @ California.

 

He's saving the San Andreas Fault for that.

 

Oh come on, the movie wasn't great but I wouldn't call it a punishment from God either....

 

It seems the reason why California doesn't do that much controlled-burning is because the millionaires who live nearby don't approve of it... and that's why when you heard about the bad wildfires, the areas most affected tend to be near the rich neighborhoods.

 

Hey now, we have something better than controlled burns, we have a fictional bear to prevent forest fires.

 

Yeah it's more of a definitive demonstration that no loving god can possibly exist.