Proof The UN Is Involved in The California Fires

a reply to: Asktheanimals

First, Lisa Haven drives me nuts.
Second, its quite obvious that people have been allowed to build homes and businesses in areas they have no business building in and should not be allowed to inhabit.
Third its quite obvious that the government of California has altogether failed at forest management.
And fourth, its apparently the case that the most likely culprit for the starting of the fires has been California utilities which should be regulated into the stone age!

a reply to: Asktheanimals

No matter how well cared for a forest is if it is dry it can burn. Most fires are caused by people. The areas around Sacrament are so dry when i look at it i wonder why more has not burned. The people keep the trees and brush cleared as is law. It still burns.
If you travel the Forest areas around Susanville it the forest is maintained so well it looks like a park, the same is true heading up to lake Tahoe and all of that area of forest, perfectly cultivated trees are spaced no underbrush and STILL it burns.

I think people are being unfair in saying it is the bad maintenance. Our huge fire last year nearly burned a town was a controlled burn out of control. The controlled burns that everyone wants often cause huge out of control fires like in the Kalmiopsis wilderness area.

Many of the fires are lightning strikes and the Forests of Ca and Or and Wa are HUGE. it would not be possible to make it fireproof!

Colorado

The controlled burn was supposed to stave off a future blaze; instead, warm temperatures and high winds fanned a wall of flames that torched 1,400 acres, left three people dead, and destroyed 23 homes—even those like Scanlan’s with defensible space.

www.outsideonline.com...

EVERY STATE has controlled burns and they have often ended badly. Ca does use controlled burns tired of people saying they don't. People act like the rugged terrain and steep mountains are somehow tameable!

The biggest factor is people moving into forested areas.

"Of the approximately 33 million acres of forest in California, federal agencies (including the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service) own and manage 19 million acres (57%)."

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Their presence is one more reason money isn't available for forest maintenance.

Healthy forests don't need to be maintained. In some cases the obsession with "maintaining" wild areas contributes to the problem, by proving safe and accessible places for people to have BBQs, or for giving egress for hoards of hikers and mountain bikers. Plus planning is flawed if people build houses abutting dry forests and then act surprised when their houses burn when the forest burn.

Good thread. Management of California's forests has taken a back seat to unneeded things people want. The government in California sees these forests as non-tax paying property, I think there is too much incentive to leaving them be ignored. Just think of the tax money they will collect from new houses built in those burnt out forests.

originally posted by: snowspirit
Conspiracies about specifically California fires, don’t account for the last couple of years of massive burning of Oregon, Washington, British Columbia......those fires only stopped because of cooler weather and winter settling in.

The west coast burned all summer...

Add other states too remember the arizona fires?

Right now

Wildfires are burning throughout Arizona, even with monsoon moisture that continues to move across the state.

In 2017, Arizona experienced a total of 2,321 wildfires across the state

www.abc15.com...

Alaska does controlled burns and had a bunch of big fires in previous years citing hot dry conditions and wind in other words NATURE.
www.nbcnews.com...

originally posted by: eisegesis
If I was a 6 mile wide, multi-band "rectenna," where would I hide?

Buried deep within a rectal cavity, I imagine?





...i know. I'm sorry. I'm a bad person. But I only meant it purely as humor not a dismissive gesture.

I think the rectenna is plausible.

Underground I guess or disguised as something else? Or a whole bunch of something elses, that are actually working together as one thing? Piggybacked along the electrical grid?

a reply to: snowspirit

Check this out. I was absolutely stunned to read this. British Columbia government destroying natural wildfire defences by spraying glysophate over hectares of land in order to gain from profit of conifer trees.

www.cbc.ca...

a reply to: ccseagull

Yeah. Saw this on CBC.CA this morning as well.
Very pertinent that you posted it here.
Cheers!

a reply to: Asktheanimals

I see where youre going with this. Land clearing, China steps in and assists with loans for infrastructure, builds new cities.
This economic silk road of China is quite pervasive.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

No argument that fires are natural occurrences and part of forest and grasslands ecology but they have been growing in size and destructive capacity.

The last 2 years have cost more in lives and buildings than any other years in California's history.
15 out of 20 of California's most destructive wild fires have happened in the last 20 years.
6 of them in just the last 2 years and fire season isn't over yet.
Stats argue something has changed.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Yes. The dry season is getting longer and the wet season is getting drier.
This is from before the fires started:

The first part of fall has been dry so far in California, and that trend might continue.

UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain said it's not unusual for rain to be scarce in October, but that dry conditions – like the ones forecast over the next few weeks – are increasingly being pushed deeper into autumn.

"We expect there to be a further concentration of California's already narrow rainy season into even fewer months during just the middle of winter,” Swain said, as laid out in his recent blog post.

Swain’s research suggests this trend is already evident, especially in Southern California. This could make fire season worse and make 2018 another piece of evidence regarding dry autumns in the state.

www.capradio.org...

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Asktheanimals

First, Lisa Haven drives me nuts.
Second, its quite obvious that people have been allowed to build homes and businesses in areas they have no business building in and should not be allowed to inhabit.
Third its quite obvious that the government of California has altogether failed at forest management.
And fourth, its apparently the case that the most likely culprit for the starting of the fires has been California utilities which should be regulated into the stone age!

Who are you to say where people have "business" building their homes or businesses? What makes an area off limits in your mind? What gives others the right to say "nope, not building here".

Now if we are talking at the top of a tall mountain/volcano or something, I kind of agree, but I even think building a "business" like an observatory (large platform for looking out, possibly a chalet for lunch/meals/etc) I can even see that at the top of these places, though IDK if insurance would be affordable.

If you look at the maps I would venture a guess that a high percentage of those red lines that crisscross the nation are rivers/creeks and they want to protect the area for a mile or so on either side. In the midwest you see a lot of what look like squares along the red lines and I wouldn't be surprised if those are confluence areas where 2 river/creeks meet which I understand why you would want a larger zone of "natural area" where those are, because more wildlife lives there and there is usually MUCH more flooding in those areas.

Another reason for those red lines is to limit the amount of pollutions entering the water. Less runoff making it to the creeks/rivers as more of it is absorbed into the ground surrounding the populated areas. I see this as a good thing over-all. We really need to look at the Pac NW and examine what has happened to the salmon population and how hydro dams have destroyed their ability to spawn, b/c so many different reasons - even if they make it back up to spawn, the trip back down the river is VERY DIFFICULT on the tiny fish b/c of the long stretches of slack-water behind the dams making the fish have to swim where before they could float down the river and out to see. Many predatory species have popped up and eat the baby fish where before there was no good habitat for these predators but the dams have made this possible to happen.

You know OP i wouldn't be surprised if the UN is somehow behind all this.

a reply to: AtlasHawk

The OP has proved it.
Says so. Right there in the title.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Yes. The dry season is getting longer and the wet season is getting drier.
This is from before the fires started:

The first part of fall has been dry so far in California, and that trend might continue.

UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain said it's not unusual for rain to be scarce in October, but that dry conditions – like the ones forecast over the next few weeks – are increasingly being pushed deeper into autumn.

"We expect there to be a further concentration of California's already narrow rainy season into even fewer months during just the middle of winter,” Swain said, as laid out in his recent blog post.

Swain’s research suggests this trend is already evident, especially in Southern California. This could make fire season worse and make 2018 another piece of evidence regarding dry autumns in the state.

www.capradio.org...

Correlation does not necessitate causation.

# 1013

a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

True.

But a longer dry season provides a good mechanism for more severe fires.

The UN is using HAARP to control the weather in order for wildfires to become more severe.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Don't be silly, we all know it was a crack regiment of the Democratic Suicide squad who burnt themselves to death to annoy Trump.

There is no doubt that most of the fires have been started purposely.a reply to: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

True.

But a longer dry season provides a good mechanism for more severe fires.

The UN is using HAARP to control the weather in order for wildfires to become more severe.

Do you really think HAARP is involved with weather manipulation? I'm not being sarcastic or anything just curious what you honestly think. Do you think "chemtrails" are used in addition to HAARP or in conjunction with it? I know what I have seen when it comes to "contrails" from the 1980's till about 2004 when I started seeing them and I know they weren't like that before, not even close and I spent over 1/2 my life outside in wide open areas.

I think it's possible some of the stuff that is sprayed absorbs the moisture in clouds/air reducing the chance of rain and changing barometric pressures - the spray's alone can change the pressure, but in conjunction with 100% humidity, it has an even greater effect - all of this effects wind direction, travel of storms, etc.

I'm not sure how HAARP can effect rain or movement of weather/fronts, but I suspect it can add heat to moist air which will effect pressure and flow of fronts. I'm also curious about how HAARP could effect the particles sprayed in the air, possibly giving them surface area to absorb the energy from HAARP, transmitting it to the air by radiant/convection.