Sigh. This is why we can't have nice discussions on this topic.
Originally Posted by CTKook
Originally Posted by Bob Lee
Citations, please. You've only written speculations. You say it's a matter of analysis - please show the facts of your analysis. Site-specific facts, Kook, not agenda, please. Consider it crucial for you to retain (or for this particular topic, obtain) credibility.
Have you been to the site? I'm looking for something that would elevate you above the status of a basically uninformed agenda-driven armchair internet critic.
I've already provided citations that would be understood by the informed.
I must have missed them. Could you be a bro and just put them up again? I'm asking for the sake of perspective. I can't tell if you ideas concerning comments about "nuking" and "moonscaping" come from official agency studies, or from firefighters using colloquialisms the way they do in the real world.
Your pattern of personal attack, such as your trying to tar someone with the phrase "a basically uninformed agenda-driven armchair internet critic" is by this point repetitive and tiring.
This is kind of hilarious (though a repetitive meme of yours), coming from you right after you made your crack about "understood by the informed." But since you mention patterns, I believe that one of your posts in this thread was recently moderated because its attack tone. That's quite the case of pkb there, amigo.
But to my point, the truth of it is that you are "a basically uninformed agenda-driven armchair internet critic." You have no practical, real-world experience or training in fire ecology or fire management. Unlike myself (with 32 years of local, regional and national level fire suppression, fire management and land management agency experience and a forestry degree) you only know what you've read. Your continued hammering on government fire program funding is demonstrative of your agenda.
You tried this in the case of the Yarnell fire as well, only to have your assertions completely discredited by the actual facts, which were as I had noted (and showed a mistake, not a symptom of a lack of government funding, etc.).
I'm sorry that you still feel slighted about that whole thing, because you were wrong then, as you are now, accept it. BTW, I see where you edited out your completely inaccurate comment concerning my thoughts about the Granite Mountain crew's leadership. Agenda much? perhaps you should let that topic go, seing as you were wrong.
Ah, curious that you should link that report. I was going to cite it myself. Looking through it, I couldn't find any mention of "nuked" or "moonscape." What I did find is that almost 17,000 acres had the highest level of soil damage,
Quote from the linked draft report:
In the high soil burn severity areas in granitic soils, soil structure was destroyed down to 1-2 inches depth, and fine roots and organic matter were consumed, leaving loose unconsolidated single-grained surface material. In the metamorphic soils, structure and organic matter were affected only down to 1/2 to 1 inch, with finer roots generally charred but present. In both terrains, soil cover is completely lacking in high SBS areas (except for rock and debris cover);
And that almost 100,000 acres had soil damage severe enough that:
Quote from the linked report:
potential soil cover in the form of heat-killed conifer needles (“brown-crowns”) is present in about 2/3 of the moderate SBS areas and lacking in the remaining 1/3, so this latter portion of moderate SBS areas may be expected to have a higher watershed response (similar to high SBS) with larger storm events (~ 10-year return-interval or greater).
Did you actually read that report? No matter, I don't expect any sort of reasonable discussion from you. Your discussion technique was noted very accurately by another person in the Mass Shootings thread:
I'll point this out now and again because your proclivity for spewing this kind of stuff is offensive. It is utterly impossible to debate with you because you make stuff up, spew false equivalences, and draw conclusions where none can reasonably be drawn (and conversely, refuse to acknowledge both logical conclusions and empirical data).