Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 11, 2017

The toll from Northern California's ranging wildfires continued to grow Tuesday evening as officials said the fires destroyed up to 2,000 structures and killed at least 17 people. The devastating losses establish firestorms among the most destructive in California history. The estimated losses of homes, businesses and other buildings jumped from 1,500 to 2,000, and officials fear the death toll will also continue to rise. Sonoma County alone has received about 200 reports of missing people since Sunday night, and sheriff's officials have located 45 of those people, said county spokeswoman Maggie Fleming. The majority of the fatalities are from Sonoma County, where huge swaths of the city of Santa Rosa were leveled by the Tubbs fire. Eleven people have died in Sonoma County as of 7 p.m. Tuesday, officials said. Two people have died in Napa County, three in Mendocino County and one in Yuba County, Cal Fire officials said.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Now can we talk about climate change?

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-11 09:12 AM | Reply

--Now can we talk about climate change?

Why? We have a fire season every year around this time in Cali. Back in the 70s we would party at the bottom of the foothills and watch the flames and drink whiskey and rye.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-11 10:17 AM | Reply

Now can we talk about climate change?

#1 | POSTED BY JPW

No. Not until 101% of scientists agree that it is happening due to man-made causes. Don't give me this 99.5% stuff.

#3 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-11 10:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#3: Hey Bub, it's only 97%, not 99.5%. Sheesh.

#4 | Posted by Daniel at 2017-10-11 11:11 AM | Reply

What I don't understand is how these people are dying in these fires...you know it's coming, you have been told to get out, fire does not forgive, you can't build a dam to hold it back, it leaves nothing behind...grab your stuff and leave! In this day and age of fast information and quality emergency services I see no excuse for deaths from these fires other than stubborn stupidity. I have lived in a forest fire zone my whole life and have never seen loss of life the likes of this. This just baffles me.

#5 | Posted by ghoti at 2017-10-11 11:30 AM | Reply

Pssst #1,

www.sfgate.com

#6 | Posted by tontonmacoute at 2017-10-11 11:33 AM | Reply

I will say this, - for all those doomsayers claiming the End Of Days is upon us the last 3 months has been cause for celebration. Hurricanes. Earthquakes. Mass Shootings. Fires. The Riders of the Apocalypse have new horses.

#7 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-10-11 11:37 AM | Reply

--This just baffles me.

I've seen this for 50 years or so in Cali. People think they can save their home with a garden hose. Then they die.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-11 11:44 AM | Reply

#3: Hey Bub, it's only 97%, not 99.5%. Sheesh.

#4 | POSTED BY DANIEL

97% is the number of Journal articles in the 90's and early 2000's that said claiming global warming was happening and it was man-made.

Do try to keep up.

#9 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-10-11 11:55 AM | Reply

Fires I hate to admit are not necessarily climate change related but it doesn't help. They have a lot to do with poor management techniques that have gone on for several decades as much as anything else. The techniques make the fires that happen worse than they would be in ordinary environments by allowing fuel to build up - sometimes for decades - in between fires. So when something ignites them they become massive quickly. Of course in this case 50-60 mph winds driving them would make them massive even without large amounts of fuel built up.

#10 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-10-11 12:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

You build subdivisions out in the desert, surrounded by dry brush, with houses about 8 feet apart, and eventually, Mother Nature is going to get her payback. Community after community in California has banned or restricted the clearing of brush, dead trees, etc.. and the piper gets paid.

#11 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-10-11 01:11 PM | Reply

"California has banned or restricted the clearing of brush"

You apparently have your convenient outrage backwards, fool

#12 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2017-10-11 01:24 PM | Reply

I'm currently having a hard time breathing normally just about 20 miles south of San Francisco/30 miles south of San Ramon. It's bad here. Visibility is maybe 5-10 miles, if that.

As a Californian, yes, wildfires are part of the normal cycle of things, and yes, poor land management has had an effect, but let's not go all, "because these things, climate change has nothing to do with it."

California has been in a drought for years, and the rains that came over the last year were a welcome relief. Trees and other plants die during droughts, and don't magically resurrect themselves once the reservoirs are full again. Trees fuel fires. Grass, on the other hand, grows pretty fast, and dries up pretty fast. Right now is the warmest time of the year, so there is a lot of dry brush out there to fuel fires as well. Lots of California trees are dead because of the warmer climate. The warmer climate is a result of climate change. This is absolutely connected. If it rains heavily again, we'll get mudslides. Those occur because the brush and grass and trees have been burnt to the ground, so there's nothing to prevent the water from pooling, then flooding...

Weather is not climate.

#13 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-10-11 02:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#5 | POSTED BY GHOTI

That is the dumbest thing I've ever hear. Fires are not floods or hurricanes. You don't "know its coming".

#14 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-11 02:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Meant to include "man-made climate change" as a qualifier for the warmer climate.

The 97% number may have been affected by methodological errors. It is more recently estimated that the number is closer to 99.9% now.

#15 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-10-11 02:12 PM | Reply

--Weather is not climate.

True, and the natural phenomenon of wildfires that occur in California every year at certain months has been going on for thousands of years, long before anyone heard of "global warming."

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-11 02:19 PM | Reply

--Weather is not climate.
True, and the natural phenomenon of wildfires that occur in California every year at certain months has been going on for thousands of years, long before anyone heard of "global warming."

#16 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

The severity, duration and frequency of wildfires has increased due to global warming. My comment included that wildfires are part of the normal cycle of things. What's your point?

#17 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-10-11 02:26 PM | Reply

--The severity, duration and frequency of wildfires has increased due to global warming.

Prove it.

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-11 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Is Global Warming Fueling Increased Wildfire Risks?

The effects of global warming on temperature, precipitation levels, and soil moisture are turning many of our forests into kindling during wildfire season.

Wildfires in the western United States have been increasing in frequency and duration since the mid-1980s, occurring nearly four times more often, burning more than six times the land area, and lasting almost five times as long (comparisons are between 1970-1986 and 1986-2003).

Natural cycles, human activities -- such as land-use (clearing, development, mining) and fire exclusion -- as well as climate change can influence the likelihood of wildfires. However, many of the areas that have seen these increases -- such as Yosemite National Park and the Northern Rockies -- are protected from or relatively unaffected by human land-use and behaviors. This suggests that climate change is a major factor driving the increase in wildfires.

www.ucsusa.org

#19 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-11 02:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Thanks, #19.

Again, I'll ask you, what's your point, NULLIFIDIAN? Be prepared to prove it yourself.

#20 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-10-11 02:32 PM | Reply

Environmental Protection Agency notes specific analysis that suggests that the wildfire season in California "are expected to increase in intensity and frequency due to climate change." A 2015 study determined that this had already begun to occur in part, Holthaus notes, because Diablo winds are expected to become more frequent and severe.

Climate models predict that extreme precipitation events will become more common, including in California. Otherwise, there may be longer periods without precipitation, which could then increase the period during which dry conditions for fires exist. (The San Diego Union-Tribune has an interview with two climate scientists about the expected changes that details why this might occur.)

www.washingtonpost.com

#21 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-11 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That is the dumbest thing I've ever hear. Fires are not floods or hurricanes. You don't "know its coming".

#14 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

--------
Plenty of warning is given during wildfires in the majority of cases...and this was no different...I spent all of August and part of Sept. with my truck gassed and loaded with my essentials due to a group of fires blazing less than 10 km north of my community. There is 2 ways out of here, the way west was closed due to the fires and the way south is 100km of bushroad to the next town, We had to be ready to go at the drop of a hat...you don't screw around, like I said, there's no way to save anything, you just go...those that think otherwise are dumb as rocks.

#22 | Posted by ghoti at 2017-10-11 03:54 PM | Reply

#12 I lived in San Diego for a decade. Homeowners in my neighborhood were forbidden from clearing brush on the hillside behind their homes because they didn't own it, the county or city did. Quit talking out of your ass, dimwit.

#23 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-10-11 03:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Blame it on people moving where they shouldn't be.

#24 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-10-11 03:58 PM | Reply

"Homeowners in my neighborhood were forbidden from clearing brush on the hillside behind their homes because they didn't own it, the county or city did."

Can you normally clear brush on property that doesn't belong to you?

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-11 03:59 PM | Reply

Prove it.

#18 | Posted by nullifidian

It's not as if that information is scarce or hard to find...

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-11 04:57 PM | Reply

Still waiting for nullifidian's point. I'm sure it will be forthcoming with references.

#27 | Posted by chuffy at 2017-10-11 05:07 PM | Reply

"Homeowners in my neighborhood were forbidden from clearing brush on the hillside behind their homes because they didn't own it, the county or city did."

Can you normally clear brush on property that doesn't belong to you?

#25 | Posted by snoofy

oh snap! That's gonna burn.

#28 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-11 05:19 PM | Reply

--www.ucsusa.org

The Union of Concerned Scientists. Now there is a credible source without an ideological ax to grind. TFF.

#29 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-11 05:22 PM | Reply

Uh huh. Like you don't come here to grind your ideological axe.

Your ideology: global warming has no impact on California wildfires.

Actually that's really just a facet of your ideology, which is: claims of global warming itself are nothing more than scaremongering in an attempt by liberals to seize power.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-11 05:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#30 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

If liberals were actually in the business of fearmongering they'd be demonizing higher education, Islam, immigrants, the Chinese, liberalism, and the LGBTQA+ community as well as threatening that the other side is going to take our guns and butter away.

#31 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-11 06:15 PM | Reply

#29 UCS was founded in 1969 by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. That year, the Vietnam War was at its height and Cleveland's heavily polluted Cuyahoga River had caught fire. Appalled at how the U.S. government was misusing science, the UCS founders drafted a statement calling for scientific research to be directed away from military technologies and toward solving pressing environmental and social problems.

We remain true to that founding vision. Throughout our history, UCS has followed the example set by the scientific community: we share information, seek the truth, and let our findings guide our conclusions.
It's a powerful formula.

By mobilizing scientists and combining their voices with those of advocates, educators, business people, and other concerned citizens, UCS has built a reputation for fairness and accuracy and amassed an impressive history of accomplishments.

www.ucsusa.org

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-11 08:58 PM | Reply

The Union of Concerned Scientists. Now there is a credible source without an ideological ax to grind. TFF.
#29 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Way to attack the messenger, corkidian.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-11 09:12 PM | Reply

In places these fires are the result of high winds and utility companies not being forced to maintain their lines.

#34 | Posted by Tor at 2017-10-12 01:43 AM | Reply

What I don't understand is how these people are dying in these fires.

How stupid.

www.sfgate.com

These fires are fast moving, stirred by 70 mph winds and come up extremely fast without warning.

#35 | Posted by 726 at 2017-10-12 07:36 AM | Reply

The death toll is up to 21. I blame Trump for withdrawing from the Paris Accords.

#36 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-12 10:06 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

The smoke yesterday in San Jose was so intense people wore masks.

It would be interesting if concerned scientists calculated the CO2 release from this fire.

The idea that global warming is a factor is interesting but stupid. Prove it without grand standing.

The effects of global warming on temperature, precipitation levels, and soil moisture are turning many of our forests into kindling during wildfire season.

That's not the case in Napa, which had flooding and mud slides just this winter and spring.

It was man made fire, a century of putting out fires quickly, causes plenty of dead fuel to accumulate, the forest service learned this the hard way. Napa couldn't afford an uncontrolled fire given centuries old vines.

#37 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-10-12 10:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Prove it without grand standing.

I think people like you expect science to have "eureka" moments where all is explained in on fell swoop.

But that's not how it works. It's more a death by a thousand cuts than anything else.

It was man made fire, a century of putting out fires quickly, causes plenty of dead fuel to accumulate,

In a sense this is true in that we suppress the natural way of removing dead timber.

But it's my understanding that the amount of dead tree growth is CA is massive because of the destruction brought by the bark beetle.

And the reason the bark beetle has been so destructive is two fold and both are related to climate change. One, because of drought the trees haven't produced enough pitch to expel the beetles that breech the bark layer and two the beetle is usually kept in check by hard frosts which aren't occurring.

www.youtube.com

I recommend watching the above documentary series on Netflix.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-12 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

www.pinterest.com

We should listen to science.

#39 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-10-12 11:26 AM | Reply

We should listen to science.

#39 | POSTED BY PETROUS

Aww how cute. It thinks pinterest is science.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-12 11:30 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The death toll is up to 21. I blame Trump for withdrawing from the Paris Accords.

#36 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

3000 homes destroyed and hundreds are still missing. And I blame you for being a Nazi coddler.

Isn't this making light of other people's fun?

We should do this more often.

#41 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-12 11:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Other people's tragedies....

Doh.

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-12 11:44 AM | Reply

JPW you didn't follow the link to look at all the scientific observations by the professionals, did you?

Scared of the facts?

#43 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-10-12 11:45 AM | Reply

Back in the 70s we would party at the bottom of the foothills and watch the flames and drink whiskey and rye.

#2 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Because the levee was dry? Climate change!

But clearly it wasn't the day you died.

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-12 11:47 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

JPW you didn't follow the link to look at all the scientific observations by the professionals, did you?
Scared of the facts?

I looked at it.

It's newspaper clippings from the 70's about the ice age claims denialists love to tout.

Of course they never want to talk about the fact that it wasn't a widespread view within the climate science field.

www.skepticalscience.com

Of course you'll probably keep posting that drivel anyway. How can you not? You see it every time you go on pinterest to find autumn wreath ideas.

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-12 11:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--We should listen to science.

As if scientists have a uniform opinion. That's never been true, as anyone familiar with the history of science knows. And which "science" should we listen to? The one that predicts moderate warming by the end of the century, manageable, nothing humans can't adapt to -- or the "science" that says the we are all going to die in a few decades?

#46 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-12 11:51 AM | Reply

"And which "science" should we listen to?"

Rut Roh!

Our resident Luddite has been blinded by "science" again.

#47 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-12 11:54 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

- the "science" that says the we are all going to die in a few decades?

That's usually your "science" of choice.

Giving credence to what the vast majority of science says about climate change being so... blase.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2017-10-12 11:56 AM | Reply

--Because the levee was dry? Climate change!

But clearly it wasn't the day you died."

That's pretty funny. Was wondering if anyone would get my allusion

What's even funnier is that the great scare in those days was global cooling.

1972 - WALTER CRONKITE - WARNS of COMING ICE AGE - YouTube
▶ 2:12
www.youtube.com

#49 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-12 11:57 AM | Reply

The Global Warming excuse denies the ability to learn. ....

Pondering this in the shower, people on here claiming it GlobalWarming are so oblivious to the nature of fires conditions.

1. Its fall, summer saw two rainstorms, it is Californias fire season.
2. High gusting day ( I know this because I was sailing its fleet week)
3. The area grows good grapes precisely because it gets dry soil.

Everything those "scientist" from Gals quote, were claiming were the cause is the reason people grow grapes there, how ignorant of the situation/geography/weather can you possibly be?

Those sitting there claiming GlobalWarming are claiming ignorance to science and the power of good observation.

Its pathetic actually, you will learn nothing about the world if you claim everything is GlobalWarming, not only that but your message is obfuscated by overuse in situations can be clearly explained by the conditions observed in the past.

GlobalWarming it is supposedly a trend, if so we should be seeing more and more, it is empirical not anecdotal. Running to the papers about every little natural occurrence when there is no trend line from Hurricanes to man made Fires isn't scientific.

It will be interesting when California has TheBigOne and GW fanatics claim its because of GlobalWarming or should I say GlobalShock.

#50 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-10-12 12:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'm just wondering why it's impossible that global warming can make fire season worse.

Unless of course global warming is a hoax. Is it?

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-12 12:07 PM | Reply

That's the point. If you were studying climate changes, you view large periods of time.

In just 30 years, the scientific community went from cooling to heating.

The base line didn't change?

#52 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-10-12 12:34 PM | Reply

#50 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

I doubt anyone on the left will blame global warming for an earthquake (we believe in science on this side of the political spectrum) but I guarantee the right will claim it was divine intervention.

#53 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-12 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The one that predicts moderate warming by the end of the century, manageable, nothing humans can't adapt to -- or the "science" that says the we are all going to die in a few decades?

#46 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Oh I don't know, maybe we can start with the fact that they both have the uniform opinion that there's warming?

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-12 12:41 PM | Reply

In just 30 years, the scientific community went from cooling to heating.

Jesus man, I shot that argument to hell 7 posts before yours.

So let me be more clear-the "scientific community" did not go from cooling to heating. Not even remotely.

What's funny is I'm thinking the cooling proponents were the deniers of the day laying down a time capsule for their future, more irrational brethren.

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-12 12:45 PM | Reply

BS JPW

The scientific community was calling for another ice age.

That's a big different in 30 years to global heating.

If the science 30 years ago looked at the same hundreds/thousands of years of climate as we are today - the scientists we're either wrong back then, they are wrong today, or neither really has clue

#56 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-10-12 12:53 PM | Reply

Its pathetic actually, you will learn nothing about the world if you claim everything is GlobalWarming, not only that but your message is obfuscated by overuse in situations can be clearly explained by the conditions observed in the past.

As usual a denier gets it completely wrong because they think they're smart by picking up the obvious.

Nobody is saying fire season is solely due to GW, they're saying the characteristics of fire season are changing because of GW.

Here's a nice balanced piece of fake news.

www.nytimes.com

Like I said, can we discuss it now?

#57 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-12 12:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

BS JPW
The scientific community was calling for another ice age.

And dneiers wonder why they're considered stupid.

If the science 30 years ago looked at the same hundreds/thousands of years of climate as we are today - the scientists we're either wrong back then, they are wrong today, or neither really has clue

The dichotomy you're claiming didn't exist.

Exxon's own scientists knew what was up in the 70's.

www.scientificamerican.com

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-12 12:58 PM | Reply

NYT: "International team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere."

"Worldwide and rapid trends towards a mini Ice Age are emerging from the first longer term analyses of satellite weather pictures."

"After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point; It is getting colder. "

"The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disasterous new ice age, leading atmospheric scientist predicts. - NASA Scientist Dr. S. I. Rsaool of NASA.

Either scientists were wrong, are wrong, or from both time periods- were both wrong and haven't a clue.

#59 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-10-12 01:07 PM | Reply

You can keep lying. It won't make it true.

#60 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-12 01:09 PM | Reply

"That's not the case in Napa, which had flooding and mud slides just this winter and spring."

From one of the articles I cited earlier:

The winter from 2016 into 2017 (measured from October to February) was the wettest on record. That period included a number of "extreme participation events" -- periods during which an unusually large amount of rain fell. For example, the Scripps Institution of Oceanography noted that some regions west of Reno saw more than 20 inches over three days in January, powered by a "pineapple express" weather pattern. The same region saw a similar event in February.

Remember that much of the state saw severe drought in recent years. The influx of moisture helped spur a lot of new plant life. By summer, that dried out as drier conditions kicked in. By late June, during the first common fire season in California, that dry vegetation was being blamed for a spate of fires in the northern part of the state.

www.washingtonpost.com

#61 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-12 01:22 PM | Reply

JPW - Lies? These are quotes from the past. These were people who were the experts.

What is true is that they said it.

What is not determined is if they were idiots or if today's are idiots, or we're idiots to believe either of them since they are contradicting each other using the same scientific tests and methods.

#62 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-10-12 01:25 PM | Reply

"2. High gusting day ( I know this because I was sailing its fleet week"

Also from the article:

The Environmental Protection Agency notes specific analysis that suggests that the wildfire season in California "are expected to increase in intensity and frequency due to climate change." A 2015 study determined that this had already begun to occur in part, Holthaus notes, because Diablo winds are expected to become more frequent and severe.

No one is saying that forest fires are caused solely by climate change. What scientists are saying is that climate change is exacerbating them, i.e. causing more fires and causing the fires that occur to be more severe.

#63 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-12 01:28 PM | Reply

#61 Forgot to include this next sentence:

The summer continued, as did dry conditions. The stage was set for the recent conflagrations.

#64 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-10-12 01:30 PM | Reply

--The winter from 2016 into 2017 (measured from October to February) was the wettest on record

So what? a few years earlier during the drought some geniuses were proclaiming the "end of snowfall."

#65 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-12 01:33 PM | Reply

#65 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Warmer air = more humidity = more rain.

Try again. Also, you do understand what makes snow not rain, right?

#66 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-12 01:38 PM | Reply

JPW - Lies? These are quotes from the past. These were people who were the experts.
What is true is that they said it.

You're not very bright.

Or honest.

Which is it?

I didn't argue with the existence of the quotes. I'm arguing with your contention that that was the status of the field at that time and have provided a link to clearly show that it was in fact not the status of the field.

So back to my original question. Are you simply not comprehending what I'm saying or are you being obtuse to keep your charade running a bit longer?

#67 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-12 01:43 PM | Reply

"So what?"

So weather disruptions are predicted to become more frequent and extreme with the climate change brought on by global warming.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-12 01:43 PM | Reply

Are conditions that make wild fires more prevalent considered a "weather disruption"? This is not an area that was deemed to be experiencing a drought, was it? I know some of the area near this was but I wasn't sure this specific area affected by this fire was.

#69 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-12 01:47 PM | Reply

"I'm arguing with your contention that that was the status of the field at that time and have provided a link to clearly show that it was in fact not the status of the field."

Try to remember that next time you are trying to attach a quote from one person to an entire political party, Frankie2.5.

#70 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-12 01:51 PM | Reply

Eberly the whole state's been in a drought for 5 years. That ended in the winter. And it ended with a massive deluge which led to one of the biggest growth seasons in California history.

People who've lived here for 30 years don't remember seeing a spring and summer as vivid as we saw.

So there's your fuel.

Meanwhile, the Santa Ana winds were not particularly hot this year, but they were very strong.

Wind + Fire = More Fire.

Both the stronger winds and the heavier rains are blanket predictions of MMGW theory.

But as we don't yet have the ability to predict specifically which winds and which storms will appear where, or how exactly the butterfly flapping it's wings will impact future weather, you can always hide behind the "You can't prove it!" argument like Nulli does.

Don't be like Nulli.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-12 01:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#70 do you have an example that isn't obvious trolling?

#72 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-12 02:00 PM | Reply

71

So, when you have something meaningful to say, you can actually say it. Honestly, I didn't think you were capable of anything except snarky questions as a juvenile response because you're perpetually boxed in a corner.

"Don't be like Nulli".

Thanks for the advice but there are a -------- of other posters here who I put ahead of him on the list of folks to not emulate.

#73 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-12 02:00 PM | Reply

72

do you understand what I was saying? How many times have you seen a quote from a member of a political party, no matter how absurd, get attached as a tenet of that political party?

It's one of the reasons there is no point is being a loyal member of a political party.

#74 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-12 02:02 PM | Reply

--People who've lived here for 30 years don't remember seeing a spring and summer as vivid as we saw.

Baloney. I've lived in California for 50 years and have experienced fierce flooding and wildfires.

#75 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-12 02:19 PM | Reply

Baloney. I've lived in California for 50 years and have experienced fierce flooding and wildfires.

If there was ever an listing of "blind hatred" this one would be near the top.

Try re-reading the comment again with the context it was placed under. The vividness wasn't in reference to fires and flooding, it was in reference to a lushness not seen in quite a while because of the abundance of water. It was in the sentence right before the one you mentioned, clear as day.

#76 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-10-12 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

How many times have you seen a quote from a member of a political party, no matter how absurd, get attached as a tenet of that political party?

You were insinuating I was personally doing so.

Which I only do when the statement is in line with the party position.

Otherwise I'm more than cognizant of heterogeneity in a group, unless I'm trolling.

#77 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-12 02:41 PM | Reply

--If there was ever an listing of "blind hatred" this one would be near the top.

lol The more hyper the partisan, the gaudier the patter.

#78 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-12 02:42 PM | Reply

"You were insinuating I was personally doing so"

no I wasn't. I was saying that to Frankie, who does it all the time.

#79 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-12 02:45 PM | Reply

"So, when you have something meaningful to say, you can actually say it."

Eberly, I have one more piece of advice for you, since your response wasn't in any way meaningful:

1. Don't be like Nulli.
2. Be like Snoofy.

Have a blessed day!

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-12 02:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I've lived in California for 50 years and have experienced fierce flooding and wildfires."

When was the last time you saw wildflowers bloom in the desert and along the highway like this spring and summer?

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-12 02:48 PM | Reply

no I wasn't. I was saying that to Frankie, who does it all the time.

OK now I am confused. Who's frankie, exactly, besides FrankCotton who I'm assuming you're referencing?

#82 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-12 02:50 PM | Reply

726 = Frankie2.5 (or whatever stupid handle he used to go by)

sorry for the confusion

#83 | Posted by eberly at 2017-10-12 03:14 PM | Reply

Mountains make weather. Tornado alley would not exist without the rockies. Most of the time our main airflow is west to east. When air gets to a mountain it is forced to rise. As it rises into lower pressure it expands and cannot hold water. The water condenses out as rain or snow. Then when it gets past the peak it goes down. After topping the crest, however, the clouds may have no more moisture to rain on the other side of the mountain, which becomes arid. This rain shadow is best illustrated in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California, where tall redwood forests cover the ocean-facing side of the mountains, and Death Valley lies in the rain shadow.

When the diablo winds come, the airflow is east to west. The air coming down the mountainside is hot and dry This air dries out everything in its path and fans any spark into a flame and turns any flame into an inferno basically bringing death valley to the coast

#84 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-10-12 03:15 PM | Reply

#22 | POSTED BY GHOTI

Fish, my problem is with your blanket statement. I've had to evacuate my house in the event of a fire, back in 2003. For hours upon hours the firemen were stating that we were good to stay put. The wind can change or the fire can hit the right incline and that's it. Time to leave now! That's what they us. Leave now. Sometimes there is a warning, other times there is none. The warning is never days like with storms, either. Hours at most.

#85 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-12 05:52 PM | Reply

"I've lived in California for 50 years and have experienced fierce flooding and wildfires."

Unfortunately most of the time he was so stoned he had no idea what was going on or even what state he was in. Nulli was so stoned he didn't even know the Nazi's were organizing right up on the North Coast stealing millions of dollars in a brazen daylight heist of an armored car on highway 101 near Ukiah in order to fund the KKK's coming race war.

#86 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-12 07:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--#86 | Posted by donnerboy

Like how you managed to get both "nazi" and "kkk" in there like a good little leftist mccarthyite.

#87 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-12 07:27 PM | Reply

Re #87

Oh dear!

Do you need a safe space Nulli?

#88 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-12 07:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Maybe I need to translate for you Nulli.

What I am saying is that you are basically as full of crap now as you were when said the Nazi's and the KKK were never a threat in California.

#89 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-12 07:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Will the earth's core cool enough to offset the heat generated when the sun turns into a red giant?

Will the geomagnetic reversal be blamed on trump or obama?

#90 | Posted by mutant at 2017-10-12 08:00 PM | Reply

Nulli was so stoned he didn't even know the Nazi's were organizing right up on the North Coast stealing millions of dollars in a brazen daylight heist of an armored car on highway 101 near Ukiah in order to fund the KKK's coming race war.

That was soooo 1984.

#91 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-12 08:20 PM | Reply

"That was soooo 1984." - #91 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-10-12 08:20 PM

The last time Nulli Quisling was actually a liberal.

Good call, RoC.

Good call.

#92 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-12 08:32 PM | Reply

Many of you should read 1984....

#93 | Posted by mutant at 2017-10-12 08:42 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort