Was just arguing with some idiot liberal who thinks our California fires are all caused by “climate change”. Thank you Tuco for giving me more bullets to fire in his direction! 🔥
Thank you! 💯% this!! The earth has gone through cycles of boiling heat and then ice ages, and it’s still here. Solar and wind are both problematic - made from non-recyclable and hazardous materials, kill birds and whales, and only useful some of the time. We should be focusing on safe nuclear energy. And we will still need fossil fuels for many decades to come, so we should put research into making more efficient internal combustion engines. I think mass pollution is an issue, yes (especially from China and India), but the rest is WEATHER and phenomena we can’t control - solar flares, undersea volcanoes, shifting magnetic poles all have their effects.
There is data compiled by the State of California that shows acres managed over time and acres burned over the same time…it is clear and undeniable deciding to forgo forest and land management is a horrible idea.
If you want more bullets, read “unsettled.” You will learn things like 96% of weather monitoring devices are at airports, 40% of reported temperatures are “assumed” from non-existent stations.
You will also learn that the daily cooler temps are rising, and the daily high temps are relatively stable. This would seem to be what we would all want…
I can't agree more, as much data and information published by State and Federal agencies is contradictory and in many cases is self defeating in terms of their climate change agenda.
This is fortunate for those of us who like to dig, as these data can be easily deployed to counter the scam, many times using simple arithmetic. In one of my earliest articles on EVs, using data from the EPA and DOE, it was quite easy to show that replacing every car in the world with an EV would not make one iota of difference in CO2 emissions other than likely increase them.
In general, as I believe that you allude to, the Law's of Physics and Thermodynamics are largely ignored or unknown to the other side.
Thank you very sincerely…for the past several years I have visited D.C. Capitol Hill, Albany and Sacramento to speak with legislators and regulators.
Another fun fact, the IPCCs (UN is the parent) conducted a study the acronym of which is MAGICC. The data says if we go net zero by 2040 the total difference in temperature from doing nothing is under .2C.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics teaches us that almost every process is irreversible, and that for any order that we create, more disorder is created elsewhere.
The tragedy and failure of the entire net-zero movement hinges on these 101 concepts, of course largely ignored.
Tremendous amounts of wasted energy and entropy created ultimately.
I did read Unsettled. Excellent book. I figure if my weather forecast is rarely ever correct for even a 24-hour period, why should I trust anything some “climatologist” has to say?
I think some people just feel the need to virtue signal but have no actual solutions. They just want to feel like they’re somehow better than the rest of us by wallowing in self-imposed flagellation.
I think there are 2 kinds of climate change believers…the elite that benefit from massive cash hauls, and that includes politicians and their take for campaigns or compensation. Then there are pearl clutching useful idiots that believe CNN after the last 4 dozen proven happenings previously declared to be conspiracies .
Is dealing with the inept and/or uncaring libs on the existential threat of the government’s response to climate change…is it supposed to be so fun? Thanks for the bodacious smile.
I can't believe those idiots. They can't be that stupid, or are they?
You got a $trillion worth of real estate at fire risk and the morons rely on a few potable water reservoirs and fire hydrants on the city's domestic water supply in order to fight the fires. And even let some of the reservoirs go dry during wildfire season.
They're right next to the ocean for God's sakes. And contrary to the lies being told, you can certainly use salt water to suppress wild fires. It's done all the time.
You just build a pipeline between the buildings and the scrublands. Pump seawater from the ocean with diesel pumps at 300psi, a million gals/hr, in a water spray directly at the fire front. You could even have it automatically spray water in areas where fire is detected. I don't care how fierce the winds are, embers will not survive that deluge of water. What does that cost maybe $50M?
It's sure a lot cheaper, more effective and more practical to pump water than to use water bombers and helicopters as they were doing. Which often can't fly due to high winds or poor visibility.
Combining the information on California’s emissions and the perspective on the “climate change industrial complex” presents a critical viewpoint on the structural flaws of current climate policies and their real-world impacts.
The 127 million metric tons of CO2 emitted from California's 2020 wildfires—accounting for 2.4% of the nation’s total emissions—underscore the massive scale of the environmental challenge. It’s important to recognize that the severity of these wildfires is driven not by climate change but by poor land management practices and other systemic issues. This highlights why critics argue that the climate policies currently in place—ranging from heavy government intervention to overreliance on carbon trading, subsidies for “green” technologies, and broad regulatory frameworks—often fail to tackle the root causes of these issues and may even make things worse.
The “fat tails” of a bell curve, could be seen as the unforeseen consequences of these policies—like more frequent and intense wildfires, economic instability, or social inequality. Instead of mitigating risk, these policies may unintentionally amplify it. The failure to adequately address foundational issues—such as forest management, energy infrastructure, and local resilience—alongside an over focus on regulatory solutions, means that we’re seeing solutions that are often disconnected from the real, on-the-ground problems. This can shift the burden of risk onto the public, who bear the costs of both the disasters and the policies that fail to prevent them.
In this light, the “cure” (climate regulations and interventions) may indeed be worse than the “disease” (climate change impacts), as the economic disruptions, job losses, and social inequalities generated by poorly crafted policies begin to outweigh the intended benefits. Rather than reducing risks, such interventions may cause a vicious cycle of escalating control and intervention that exacerbates the very problems they aim to solve.
This view calls for a reassessment of climate policy, urging a more thoughtful and holistic approach. It's crucial to balance climate action with practical, equitable solutions that don’t inadvertently introduce new risks into the equation. Only by addressing both the immediate and systemic factors—like land management, community resilience, and realistic energy transitions—can we hope to move beyond the current policy failures and reduce both emissions and the risks they present.
Thanks for the great comment Pablo, this line says it all: "vicious cycle of escalating control and intervention".
Also of note and not discussed much is the tremendous amount of heat released by these fires. Using chemical stoichiometry, we should be able to back out the Joules of heat energy released by these fires.
Sorry, entirely misleading headline…CO2 has risen in the past 20 years. Greenhouse gases are not geographical, they are global. California ships fossil fuels from 7 countries that hate the U.S. at .8mpg diesel, and buys electricity produced by coal from surrounding states. California has mandated electricity at point of use, while burning fuels at 40% efficiency, far less than appliances at the source. California didn’t wipe out 29 years of gain, California increased CO2 all along, and just made it way worse…
Great article, as a coal guy I've been thinking about this very thing a lot lately. Fantastic to see that you've done the research and written a great article about this very issue and all the virtue signaling that has been going on in Cali for years!
I mean, I can’t even 🤦🏻♂️. There are dumb policies everywhere, but California’s forestry and climate policies are like Dumb and Dumber. Like dumb as a bag of rocks.
And don’t get me started on Newsom. Mr. Slick throughly exemplifies the 3rd Law of Stupidity “A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person while deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses themselves” (see Carlo M. Cipolla’s masterpiece, “The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity”).
CA's residential, commercial and industrial, electric rates vary by service provider. "SMUD's rates are among the lowest in California, and on average more than 57.8% lower than those of neighboring PG&E." Unfortunately, my father-in-law gets his juice from PG&E. His FAIR plan fire insurance is likely to skyrocket upon its renewal.
PM 2.5 levels can be huge during wildfires. Thanks for all the references!
Alas, Newsome will never learn to the detriment of all Californians
🤡 show - Newsom has blood on his hands now
Was just arguing with some idiot liberal who thinks our California fires are all caused by “climate change”. Thank you Tuco for giving me more bullets to fire in his direction! 🔥
Thanks for your ongoing support 🙏, we can only present logic and reason. Hopefully some will pause and consider.🤔
One constant we can count on: the climate has always changed over millennia.
Thank you! 💯% this!! The earth has gone through cycles of boiling heat and then ice ages, and it’s still here. Solar and wind are both problematic - made from non-recyclable and hazardous materials, kill birds and whales, and only useful some of the time. We should be focusing on safe nuclear energy. And we will still need fossil fuels for many decades to come, so we should put research into making more efficient internal combustion engines. I think mass pollution is an issue, yes (especially from China and India), but the rest is WEATHER and phenomena we can’t control - solar flares, undersea volcanoes, shifting magnetic poles all have their effects.
There is data compiled by the State of California that shows acres managed over time and acres burned over the same time…it is clear and undeniable deciding to forgo forest and land management is a horrible idea.
If you want more bullets, read “unsettled.” You will learn things like 96% of weather monitoring devices are at airports, 40% of reported temperatures are “assumed” from non-existent stations.
You will also learn that the daily cooler temps are rising, and the daily high temps are relatively stable. This would seem to be what we would all want…
I can't agree more, as much data and information published by State and Federal agencies is contradictory and in many cases is self defeating in terms of their climate change agenda.
This is fortunate for those of us who like to dig, as these data can be easily deployed to counter the scam, many times using simple arithmetic. In one of my earliest articles on EVs, using data from the EPA and DOE, it was quite easy to show that replacing every car in the world with an EV would not make one iota of difference in CO2 emissions other than likely increase them.
In general, as I believe that you allude to, the Law's of Physics and Thermodynamics are largely ignored or unknown to the other side.
Stop by anytime and comment, good stuff.
TC
Thank you very sincerely…for the past several years I have visited D.C. Capitol Hill, Albany and Sacramento to speak with legislators and regulators.
Another fun fact, the IPCCs (UN is the parent) conducted a study the acronym of which is MAGICC. The data says if we go net zero by 2040 the total difference in temperature from doing nothing is under .2C.
Truly.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics teaches us that almost every process is irreversible, and that for any order that we create, more disorder is created elsewhere.
The tragedy and failure of the entire net-zero movement hinges on these 101 concepts, of course largely ignored.
Tremendous amounts of wasted energy and entropy created ultimately.
I did read Unsettled. Excellent book. I figure if my weather forecast is rarely ever correct for even a 24-hour period, why should I trust anything some “climatologist” has to say?
I think some people just feel the need to virtue signal but have no actual solutions. They just want to feel like they’re somehow better than the rest of us by wallowing in self-imposed flagellation.
I think there are 2 kinds of climate change believers…the elite that benefit from massive cash hauls, and that includes politicians and their take for campaigns or compensation. Then there are pearl clutching useful idiots that believe CNN after the last 4 dozen proven happenings previously declared to be conspiracies .
Futwick, with that comment, you are like a psychic channeling Plato !
Is dealing with the inept and/or uncaring libs on the existential threat of the government’s response to climate change…is it supposed to be so fun? Thanks for the bodacious smile.
I can't believe those idiots. They can't be that stupid, or are they?
You got a $trillion worth of real estate at fire risk and the morons rely on a few potable water reservoirs and fire hydrants on the city's domestic water supply in order to fight the fires. And even let some of the reservoirs go dry during wildfire season.
They're right next to the ocean for God's sakes. And contrary to the lies being told, you can certainly use salt water to suppress wild fires. It's done all the time.
You just build a pipeline between the buildings and the scrublands. Pump seawater from the ocean with diesel pumps at 300psi, a million gals/hr, in a water spray directly at the fire front. You could even have it automatically spray water in areas where fire is detected. I don't care how fierce the winds are, embers will not survive that deluge of water. What does that cost maybe $50M?
It's sure a lot cheaper, more effective and more practical to pump water than to use water bombers and helicopters as they were doing. Which often can't fly due to high winds or poor visibility.
Erudite as always SmithFS!
I hereby nominate you for non-DEI fire chief and Mayor of LaLa.
Fire the Water Commissioner first day. 🆗?
Restacks appreciated too, 😎😁
All The Homes Are Gone, The United Spot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFpY2BYyBA8
That is 🤣 !
I passed it on .
Best
TC
Combining the information on California’s emissions and the perspective on the “climate change industrial complex” presents a critical viewpoint on the structural flaws of current climate policies and their real-world impacts.
The 127 million metric tons of CO2 emitted from California's 2020 wildfires—accounting for 2.4% of the nation’s total emissions—underscore the massive scale of the environmental challenge. It’s important to recognize that the severity of these wildfires is driven not by climate change but by poor land management practices and other systemic issues. This highlights why critics argue that the climate policies currently in place—ranging from heavy government intervention to overreliance on carbon trading, subsidies for “green” technologies, and broad regulatory frameworks—often fail to tackle the root causes of these issues and may even make things worse.
The “fat tails” of a bell curve, could be seen as the unforeseen consequences of these policies—like more frequent and intense wildfires, economic instability, or social inequality. Instead of mitigating risk, these policies may unintentionally amplify it. The failure to adequately address foundational issues—such as forest management, energy infrastructure, and local resilience—alongside an over focus on regulatory solutions, means that we’re seeing solutions that are often disconnected from the real, on-the-ground problems. This can shift the burden of risk onto the public, who bear the costs of both the disasters and the policies that fail to prevent them.
In this light, the “cure” (climate regulations and interventions) may indeed be worse than the “disease” (climate change impacts), as the economic disruptions, job losses, and social inequalities generated by poorly crafted policies begin to outweigh the intended benefits. Rather than reducing risks, such interventions may cause a vicious cycle of escalating control and intervention that exacerbates the very problems they aim to solve.
This view calls for a reassessment of climate policy, urging a more thoughtful and holistic approach. It's crucial to balance climate action with practical, equitable solutions that don’t inadvertently introduce new risks into the equation. Only by addressing both the immediate and systemic factors—like land management, community resilience, and realistic energy transitions—can we hope to move beyond the current policy failures and reduce both emissions and the risks they present.
Thanks for the great comment Pablo, this line says it all: "vicious cycle of escalating control and intervention".
Also of note and not discussed much is the tremendous amount of heat released by these fires. Using chemical stoichiometry, we should be able to back out the Joules of heat energy released by these fires.
Sorry, entirely misleading headline…CO2 has risen in the past 20 years. Greenhouse gases are not geographical, they are global. California ships fossil fuels from 7 countries that hate the U.S. at .8mpg diesel, and buys electricity produced by coal from surrounding states. California has mandated electricity at point of use, while burning fuels at 40% efficiency, far less than appliances at the source. California didn’t wipe out 29 years of gain, California increased CO2 all along, and just made it way worse…
Hello Futwick, thanks for the comment and points, spot on.
However, in the very specific context of the article with associated data, I think the title is appropriate.
To your points, you may like this article:
Reprise - California's Dependence on Amazon Rainforest Oil: Newsom's Crude Reality
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/california-depends-on-amazon-rainforest
Great photo.
Such good info, TC!
Great article, as a coal guy I've been thinking about this very thing a lot lately. Fantastic to see that you've done the research and written a great article about this very issue and all the virtue signaling that has been going on in Cali for years!
Thanks Steven, I appreciate it!
Much of this is low hanging fruit and common sense, but we must remain vigilant. I am a trained organic chemist 🧪, so me rikey hydrocarbons.
Long BTU
TC
I mean, I can’t even 🤦🏻♂️. There are dumb policies everywhere, but California’s forestry and climate policies are like Dumb and Dumber. Like dumb as a bag of rocks.
And don’t get me started on Newsom. Mr. Slick throughly exemplifies the 3rd Law of Stupidity “A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person while deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses themselves” (see Carlo M. Cipolla’s masterpiece, “The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity”).
Urs, with that erudite contribution, you are evidently channeling Socrates !
I could use a ghost writer, are you available?
Best Regards,
TC
Would love to!
What precise forest policies would you recommend to stop fires burning across predominantly chaparral ecosystems in 80 mph winds?
Hi Erin, thank you for stopping by.
I am unaware of exact forestry practices for these ecosystems and the conditions.
However, logic and reason would dictate:
1. Clear away excess deadfall and brush that is close to structures and create firebreaks.
2. Have water available in fire hydrants and in reservoirs.
3. Hire people based on merit and fund the fire departments properly.
4. Knowing the history of California wildfires and the Santa Ana winds, build elsewhere or live somewhere else.
Right. I mean that seems kinda obvious. Right? Like school kids could figure that out?
Certainly a degree in neuroscience is not needed.
Lester we miss it, now that it's raining it's too much rain. It's always too much or not enough in California like the weather was a short order cook
CA's residential, commercial and industrial, electric rates vary by service provider. "SMUD's rates are among the lowest in California, and on average more than 57.8% lower than those of neighboring PG&E." Unfortunately, my father-in-law gets his juice from PG&E. His FAIR plan fire insurance is likely to skyrocket upon its renewal.
PM 2.5 levels can be huge during wildfires. Thanks for all the references!
https://www.smud.org/Rate-Information/Compare-rates
Thanks for the info, wow almost 60 % lower than PGE.
At the moment looks like CA FAIR Plan is essentially bankrupt!