Maui Fires Prove Climate Activism Is A Religion

[Carborendum]

He explains why he refused to release fire-fighting water for the fire departments.

Quote

(We) view water as one of the earthly manifestations of a god.  And that reverence... was something that was really really important to our worldview.

We can share it, but it requires true conversations about equity.

So, basically, he wanted to see the entire island burn so Biden can expand the New Green Deal.

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

He let about 1000 people die by fire so that we could have climate equity.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

This deputy office is required to have experience in water resources.  He had none prior to this job which he has held since 2019.  He has experience in land planning, not water resources.

And this wasn't the first time he let fire spread rather than release water.

Edited August 18, 2023 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

Yeesh.   From a relatively unbiased source:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-pledges-us-support-maui-through-wildfire-recovery-2023-08-17/

Quote

Maui County Emergency Management administrator Herman Andaya, criticized by local residents and media over the island's response to the deadly wildfires that killed at least 111 people, resigned on Thursday, officials said.
...
Some Maui residents said lives could have been saved had emergency sirens sounded, but Andaya's agency opted against using them, saying they would have been ineffective and confusing.

"The public is trained to seek higher ground in the event that the siren is sounded," Andaya said during Wednesday's press conference, which grew tense at times as reporters questioned the government response during the fire.

"Had we sounded the siren that night, we're afraid that people would have gone mauka (to the mountainside) and if that was the case then they would have gone into the fire," Andaya said.

...

 

- Hawaii senior water manager Kaleo Manuel was transferred to a different position, according to a statement by the state's land and natural resources department, after reports he stalled on requests by a real estate development company to release agricultural water to help fight the Lahaina fire until the blaze was established in a wildland area.
...
The Hawaii Alliance for Progressive Action said Hawaii's government was using Manuel as a scapegoat for the Lahaina fire and an earlier release of the stream water into reservoirs would have made no difference as they are not connected to Lahaina's hydrant system and it was too windy for helicopters to fly and scoop water out of them.

 

In crises, horrible things happen and people sometimes die.  I'll give a little leeway to people in charge, who sometimes make mistakes.  And I remember how president Bush was treated over Hurricane Katrina.  These things are basically built to be formed into political clubs to beat 'the other side'.  

But yeah, if there's a fire, and you get a request to use water, you grant the request.  Whether you think it'll help or not.

 

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

In crises, horrible things happen and people sometimes die.  I'll give a little leeway to people in charge, who sometimes make mistakes.

If it was a mistake.  He has given his explanation that he was trying to preserve the land and the water instead of lives.  That was his explanation.  Not a mistake.  It was a bad ideology that drove his decision making.

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

And I remember how president Bush was treated over Hurricane Katrina.

Because he pushed the button, but the slow mechanism of government only moved as fast as it could?

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

But yeah, if there's a fire, and you get a request to use water, you grant the request.  Whether you think it'll help or not.

Exactly.  And he chose to not do that.

Just because the sources were biased, doesn't make them wrong.  Proof?  In the next month, Biden will want to push the New Green Deal and cite the Maui fires as a motivation.

If I'm wrong, then fine.  This was a wild misinterpretation and I will recant.  Deal?

Edited August 18, 2023 by Carborendum

[JohnsonJones]

From the non-biased report, it appears that the water controlled by the environmentalist would have gone into natural waterways (which makes a lot of sense).  That would have given water to fight the fires IF aircraft (helicopters) were able to pick it up.  However, one of the causes of the fire spreading so rapidly were excessively high winds, which also prevented the aircraft from flying.  Thus, it sounds like it would have been a pointless thing to do anyways...making whatever Manual said irrelevant to the situation where the fire spread so quickly and couldn't be put out.

His words may have been said, but they are being used against him in an irrelevant manner...at least that's what it appears from what I've read in the thread thus far.

[Traveler]

Having spent time in Maui – there are a lot of old wooden structures that if caught on fire will burn very quickly.  In general Hawaii has a lot of such man-made structures.  In addition there are two parts or climates of every island in Hawaii island because the islands are formed by volcanic action.  Thus, there are windward sides and leeward sides.  The windward side has more moisture (rain) and thus vegetation.   The leeward is the dry side of islands.

There were two problems in Hawaii, the first was caused by high winds and ignited vegetation and old dry wood homes.  The second problem with the fire at Lahaina is that there was not sufficient water available to fight the fire.  This is sad because Lahaina is next to the sea but there was no infrastructure that would allow the use of ocean water.  Fresh water could have been used but was not released for firefighting.  The bottom line is that Hawaii was not prepared.  Nothing like this has happened before.  Now that this condition is known – the other islands ought to work toward better preparation – and as Maui is rebuilt preparations need to be put into place.

Blame is a political thing – solutions to ensure such things do not happen again is an intelligent thing.  It is unfortunate that politics appear to be relied on more than intelligence.   

 

The Traveler

[askandanswer]

On 8/19/2023 at 3:37 AM, Carborendum said:

If it was a mistake.  He has given his explanation that he was trying to preserve the land and the water instead of lives.  That was his explanation.  Not a mistake.  It was a bad ideology that drove his decision making.

5 For I, the Lord, have decreed in mine anger many destructions upon the waters; yea, and especially upon these waters.

Surely the release of that which God has cursed as a source of destruction would only have caused more destruction? 😁

 

[Carborendum]

Here's PROOF!!!

https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-awards-hawaii-official-medal-of-freedom-for-saving-water-during-fire

Need I say more?  

Edited August 22, 2023 by Carborendum

[Traveler]

One of the greatest challenges for species on earth is climate change.  With very little exception (non that I am aware of) the species that have been unable to adjust to climate change (which includes those that deny that climate change is taking place) have had the greatest problem.  It is my understanding that the planet’s oceans have had differences of over 100 feet – I am not sure that any change under 10 feet is impossible to deal with.

It is also my understanding that the average global temperature has altered more than 10 degrees – I am not sure that a 2 degree change is impossible to deal with.  The sun is experiencing climate change as are all the planets of this solar system that possess atmosphere.

As a scientist and engineer that understands Chaos theory and fractals. I understand how current models of climate, according to Chaos Theory, are items of concern.  What has me completely baffled is that the same political concern over climate change that has gone ballistic fearing climate change is ending human life on earth have no concern with LGBTQ+ social change that if the same parameters of Chaos Theory and Fractals are applied – give much worse outcomes for humans.

If one is going to claim to be following the science – that they ought to be able to follow the science when it is contrary to their opinion as much as when it compliments their opinion.  Otherwise, they are not following science, just their goofy opinions.  

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

One of the greatest challenges for species on earth is climate change. 

If you're looking from a species-wide 10,000 year perspective, I agree.   

From the perspective of an average human lifespan, or even a human societal or century-long civilization perspective, I couldn't more strongly disagree if you paid me.

[zil2]

50 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I couldn't more strongly disagree if you paid me.

I think I could, depending on just how much @Traveler is willing to pay me. Feel free to message me directly, @Traveler.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

If you're looking from a species-wide 10,000 year perspective, I agree.   

From the perspective of an average human lifespan, or even a human societal or century-long civilization perspective, I couldn't more strongly disagree if you paid me.

Question - How many human civilizations have failed or disappeared because of climate change?  Another question – How many battles were lost in WWII because the effects of climate were misunderstood?

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Question - How many human civilizations have failed or disappeared because of climate change? 

Many.   On a roughly 10,000 year cycle, maybe half that.  Let's say 5,000 years. 

So, once every 250-500 generations or so, civilizations may fail or disappear because of climate change.    Again, your claim is One of the greatest challenges for species on earth is climate change.   Again, my answer is  If you're looking from a species-wide 10,000 year perspective, I agree.  From the perspective of an average human lifespan, or even a human societal or century-long civilization perspective, I couldn't more strongly disagree if you paid me.

I'm sure you'll note with me that although civilizations fail or disappear, the species Homo Sapien cruised along just fine.  Perhaps you can also note with me, that ~240 of those ~250 generations do not have "the greatest challenges" in their lives revolving around climate change.   Ancient Egypt fell into ruin and everything was forgotten.  Big impact.  Egypt and Egyptians and Egyptian families survived and continued - not "greatest challenge" material.

 

Quote

Another question – How many battles were lost in WWII because the effects of climate were misunderstood?

I know battles are won and lost, sometimes entire wars, with the weather playing an important role.  If "the weather" is what you mean by "effects of climate", then I see your point, but I don't know what impact you expect that point to make.  I'll point out that Germany, France, GB, Belgium, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Finland, and just about all the other nations involved in WWII survived and continued on, although often scarred and changed.  Again, your claim is climate change is "one of the greatest challenges for species on earth".  I don't see how weather-driven geopolitical impacts measures up.  If individual nations don't even wink out of existence because of climate impacts on warfare, how can I believe the climate is the greatest challenge?

If you want to look on the 100k or 1m year scale, the mass extinction events would certainly qualify.  They tell me more than 75% of the species that ever lived on this earth aren't here any more because they all died out - usually during one of these events.  But I don't expect that to happen in my life, or my children's, or their children's, or theirs.  Eventually, yes.  But again, generations experiencing infinitesimaly small odds of experiencing this, doesn't qualify as one of the "greatest challenges"

Besides, a challenge is something you can rise to, something you can affect.  There's no challenge in having an entire hemisphere destroyed by a comet that nobody saw coming.