Front page story on cnn.com right now is the Fort Mac fire. In the articles they state that the fire is already 25% larger than New York City and is as big as Hong Kong, with a chance that it doubles in size still.
Of course they then have an article from a "journalist" who goes on a rant that this is about climate change and not only should we end fossil fuel use, but we should also stop building towns in areas where forest fires might occur.
How could we possibly just stop building towns where there could be a forest fire?? That's ridiculous!
How could we possibly just stop building towns where there could be a forest fire?? That's ridiculous!
Why stop at forest fires? What about building fires? Utility fires? We should just stop building towns entirely and live exclusively in paved communes in the Arctic Circle, or floating cities that can be temporarily submerged in case they suddenly come ablaze!
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
I understand that this is an emotional issue right now, but suggesting that human-caused climate change could have something to do with this is not the same as saying the people of Fort Mac "deserve" this.
Just because some moron from Taber "tweeted" something moronic doesn't nullify valid concerns about our role in what happens in the world.
__________________
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
How could we possibly just stop building towns where there could be a forest fire?? That's ridiculous!
Yeah, that seems like an unreasonable demand given how many trees there are... Okay, I've got the solution: let's just cut down all the trees. All of them. Everywhere is a firebreak. That should appease everyone.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I'm confused, how is advocating for someons silence not a free speech issue? The entire idea is people get to say what they want even if it pisses you off, good use of logical counterpoint, no need to be rhetorical because you're so correct right?
If someone said something so reprehensible don't listen to the whole thing.
Clearly no one here read that story. It's on point and doesn't ask for guilt. It comments on climate change and specifically says and I quote "It's impossible to say global warming caused this specific fire".
It also does not say to stop building towns in fire prone areas.
In fact, not one person here can offer anything against what is said in a very reasonable editorial. But hey, let's wax poetic and add stuff in that isn't even in the article
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
How could we possibly just stop building towns where there could be a forest fire?? That's ridiculous!
Bob McKenzie from quirks and quarks suggested 2 km forest breaks around cities in boreal forests. Seems like a good idea for me - basically a land moat to prevent wildfires encroaching cities.
Off the top of my head Prince Albert is another city located in the boreal forest.
I understand that this is an emotional issue right now, but suggesting that human-caused climate change could have something to do with this is not the same as saying the people of Fort Mac "deserve" this.
Just because some moron from Taber "tweeted" something moronic doesn't nullify valid concerns about our role in what happens in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
I'm confused, how is advocating for someons silence not a free speech issue? The entire idea is people get to say what they want even if it pisses you off, good use of logical counterpoint, no need to be rhetorical because you're so correct right?
If someone said something so reprehensible don't listen to the whole thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
Clearly no one here read that story. It's on point and doesn't ask for guilt. It comments on climate change and specifically says and I quote "It's impossible to say global warming caused this specific fire".
It also does not say to stop building towns in fire prone areas.
In fact, not one person here can offer anything against what is said in a very reasonable editorial. But hey, let's wax poetic and add stuff in that isn't even in the article
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badgers Nose
Bob McKenzie from quirks and quarks suggested 2 km forest breaks around cities in boreal forests. Seems like a good idea for me - basically a land moat to prevent wildfires encroaching cities.
Off the top of my head Prince Albert is another city located in the boreal forest.
Not really the post for this, and I think the mods have spoken to that effect a few times now.
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. We are just as free to tell the journalist that they are a jerk with no tact who capitalizes on the suffering of others to make a point.
Bob McKenzie from quirks and quarks suggested 2 km forest breaks around cities in boreal forests. Seems like a good idea for me - basically a land moat to prevent wildfires encroaching cities.
Off the top of my head Prince Albert is another city located in the boreal forest.
Prince George to me is one place that may also be at risk. It's about the same population as Ft. McMurray (ie a pretty major city) and is essentially surrounded by forest. A good chunk of that forest is dead or dying for pine beetle and will be ripe for a massive fire as it ages and dries out with each year.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lubicon For This Useful Post:
Bob McKenzie from quirks and quarks suggested 2 km forest breaks around cities in boreal forests. Seems like a good idea for me - basically a land moat to prevent wildfires encroaching cities.
Off the top of my head Prince Albert is another city located in the boreal forest.
Horray for poorly thought out reactionary ideas to a tragic improbable event. Next idea, too many car accidents, everyone stop driving.
And this is Bob Mcdonald you're talking about not Bob Mckenzie right?
Went to a pancake breakfast fundraiser out here this morning. Our MLA (Pitt) was collecting funds and items for the evacuees, etc. A little girl came and asked if Pitt would deliver a present to Brian Jean. She'd written him a letter to "cheer him up" and gotten him a present. She bought him a tie because he was going to need a tie for work and all his other ties burned inside his house. Cute little kid.
Last edited by Minnie; 05-07-2016 at 04:30 PM.
Reason: fixing atrocious grammar
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Minnie For This Useful Post:
Prince George to me is one place that may also be at risk. It's about the same population as Ft. McMurray (ie a pretty major city) and is essentially surrounded by forest. A good chunk of that forest is dead or dying for pine beetle and will be ripe for a massive fire as it ages and dries out with each year.
They've logged a lot of the areas around it and I've replaced it with young growth. Should be easier to manage.
I'd argue that not letting forests periodically burn is way more a problem than climate change. And besides, you can't call this period of two months without rain climate change. It's just weather.
They've logged a lot of the areas around it and I've replaced it with young growth. Should be easier to manage.
I'd argue that not letting forests periodically burn is way more a problem than climate change. And besides, you can't call this period of two months without rain climate change. It's just weather.
Been working in Gander NL for about 40 days.
It has not rained/snowed 2 of those 40 days. The forest here could not be more saturated.
Climate change is real. Snapshots of rain or lack thereof at a specific point in time is indeed just local weather.
