• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Conspiracies Spread Faster Than The Wildfires

Sharon Hill

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
2,304
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
I hate this topic but here goes.

Mike Rothschild, author of Jewish Space Lasers: The Rothschilds and 200 Years of Conspiracy Theories, has lost his home in the SoCal fires. He wrote this on social media:

The fires are a frenzy of disinformation, and the need for critical thinking and context will be greater than ever in the weeks and months to come.

I don't blame our loss on "DEI firefighters" or space lasers or antifa or Gavin Newsom or wokeness not allowing forest floors to be raked. There's no cartoon villain here. This was a catastrophic wind storm that caused bone dry vegetation to ignite. It's climate change.

The insane ideas from unhinged people are spreading on corrupted platforms. There are some awful displays of hatred available for all to see. However, it is very political so I'll not go into detail. But just like with the Hawaii fires a few years ago, people refuse to believe the obvious.

Honestly, I can't watch this kind of sewage spread so I can't follow it. But it's raging.
 
No directed energy weapons. Yet.

As Los Angeles Burns, Conspiracy Peddlers Lie About—and Celebrate—the Danger We’re Living Through​

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/01/los-angeles-fires-conspiracies/

[A]s a journalist who’s covered conspiracy theories and disinformation for many years, it’s been reassuring to learn that the disaster threatening my safety can be blamed on false flag attacks, Democrat plotting, the evils of diversity, and—say it with me—the Jews. A disaster is a ripe moment for conspiracy peddlers to ply their wares, and a historic series of fires threatening a major city—especially one filled with Democrats, non-white people and wealthy celebrities—has sent the machine into overdrive.

Some of the themes emerging are consistent: pretty much every wildfire is accused of not being a wildfire at all, but a planned attack meant to further some sinister end. This serves two purposes: casting doubt on the established science of climate change, and finding a more politically useful target to pin a disaster on.
 
Sharon Hill said:
This was a catastrophic wind storm that caused bone dry vegetation to ignite. It's climate change.
Click to expand...

Stats from the US National Interagency Fire Center:

Total Wildland Fires and Acres (1926-2019)

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

"The National Interagency Fire Center reports that between 1926 and 1935, an average of 41.5million acres of land were lost to flames every year. From 2013 to 2023, it was 7.02 million acres a year."

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/01/09/no-the-la-inferno-is-not-mother-natures-revenge/

Note that the NIFC's data before 1983 were removed from their website not that long ago, and are now only available via the Wayback Machine (as link above.)

"Wildfire activity in the United States saw a significant decrease in 2023, with approximately 2.69 million acres burned."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203990/area-of-acres-burnt-due-to-wildland-fires-in-the-us/

Part of the stats linked to above:

Wildfire-Fortean.jpg


Year - number of fires - acreage involved.

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
Stats from the US National Interagency Fire Center:

Total Wildland Fires and Acres (1926-2019)

https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_stats_totalFires.html

"The National Interagency Fire Center reports that between 1926 and 1935, an average of 41.5million acres of land were lost to flames every year. From 2013 to 2023, it was 7.02 million acres a year."

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/01/09/no-the-la-inferno-is-not-mother-natures-revenge/

Note that the NIFC's data before 1983 were removed from their website not that long ago, and are now only available via the Wayback Machine (as link above.)

"Wildfire activity in the United States saw a significant decrease in 2023, with approximately 2.69 million acres burned."

https://www.statista.com/statistics/203990/area-of-acres-burnt-due-to-wildland-fires-in-the-us/

Part of the stats linked to above:

Wildfire-Fortean.jpg


Year - number of fires - acreage involved.

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Tell me, how was infrastructure and manpower back in those days to put out the fires?

Acres burned is not a useful comparison. And the use of the Spiked politically biased source for scientific commentary is downright insulting.
 
An article on how many factors lead to devastating fires in California communities.

The Unfightable Fire​

The many fires burning around Los Angeles are pressing the limits of firefighting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...t=paXrzEeXszI291OZnrY90kS0ciVBbBMw2vcC9KRlbW4

(a gift link - that's why it looks weird)

The start of the Palisades and Eaton Fires was a case of terrible timing: A drought had turned abundant vegetation into crisp fire fuel, and the winter rains were absent. A strong bout of Santa Ana winds made what was already probable fire weather into all but a guarantee. Something—it remains to be seen what—ignited these blazes, and once they started, there was nothing anyone could do to stop them. The winds, speeding up to 100 miles an hour at times, sent showers of embers far across the landscape to ignite spot fires. The high winds meant that traditional firefighting was, at least in the beginning, all but impossible, David Acuna, a battalion chief for Cal Fire, told me: He saw videos of firefighters pointing their hoses toward flames, and the wind blowing the water in the other direction. And for a while, fire planes couldn’t fly. Even if they had, it wouldn’t have mattered, Acuna said. The fire retardant or water they would have dropped would have blown away, like the hose water. “It’s just physics,” he said.
 
Sharon Hill said:
An article on how many factors lead to devastating fires in California communities.

The Unfightable Fire​

The many fires burning around Los Angeles are pressing the limits of firefighting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...t=paXrzEeXszI291OZnrY90kS0ciVBbBMw2vcC9KRlbW4

(a gift link - that's why it looks weird)

The start of the Palisades and Eaton Fires was a case of terrible timing: A drought had turned abundant vegetation into crisp fire fuel, and the winter rains were absent. A strong bout of Santa Ana winds made what was already probable fire weather into all but a guarantee. Something—it remains to be seen what—ignited these blazes, and once they started, there was nothing anyone could do to stop them. The winds, speeding up to 100 miles an hour at times, sent showers of embers far across the landscape to ignite spot fires. The high winds meant that traditional firefighting was, at least in the beginning, all but impossible, David Acuna, a battalion chief for Cal Fire, told me: He saw videos of firefighters pointing their hoses toward flames, and the wind blowing the water in the other direction. And for a while, fire planes couldn’t fly. Even if they had, it wouldn’t have mattered, Acuna said. The fire retardant or water they would have dropped would have blown away, like the hose water. “It’s just physics,” he said.
Click to expand...
I had one experience of fire fighting when working for the Forestry Commission. We were all sent off in the Land Rover to fight a fire that broke out on a private Scottish Estate.
Only a couple of us had some experience of fighting fire, usually with nothing more than a fanned out stick brush.
We had to quickly build a dam from a small running stream (burn), for the fire brigade to use with their hoses.
Definitely was a shock to the system when you see a tree suddenly explode into a swirling tornado of fire in a split second! A large scale Forest Fire also can create it's own fast moving twisting winds too.
 
Sharon Hill said:
And the use of the Spiked politically biased source for scientific commentary is downright insulting.
Click to expand...

a) l cited Spiked as they’d worked out the averages of the acreage burned. Numbers are numbers, they express no political bias.

b) “Politically biased” ? You cite Mother Jones and the Independent, both of which are left-leaning publications.

From Wikipedia:

Mother Jones

Independent

maximus otter
 
No conspiracy.

Even in Los Angeles' wettest month (February) only five days of rain is the average.

Of course, this can be compounded depending on whether it's an El Niño or La Niña year- it being La Niña at present - which means less rainfall- so drier conditions for fires to spread.
 
I am hoping there is a special circle in hell for those who push conspiracy theories that aren't true. I don't mean "let's investigate this".

Actually it's probably the same circle as the religious leaders (and others) who terrify people and then take all their money!
 
I was just watching footage on the BBC website and there's burning and burnt out houses but the trees next to them are either singed or untouched as are the telegraph poles.
 
maximus otter said:
a) l cited Spiked as they’d worked out the averages of the acreage burned. Numbers are numbers, they express no political bias.

b) “Politically biased” ? You cite Mother Jones and the Independent, both of which are left-leaning publications.

From Wikipedia:

Mother Jones

Independent

maximus otter
Click to expand...
The Spiked article was written by a political writer, and is not a respectable news publication. If you want the best answer, you look at multiple credible sources, not just one or a few that have cherry picked the data to be contrarian.
 
kesavaross said:
I was just watching footage on the BBC website and there's burning and burnt out houses but the trees next to them are either singed or untouched as are the telegraph poles.
Click to expand...
Some things are more resistant to catching fire. A pole or tree has less surface area to catch embers and may have more contained moisture. There were also some instances of a single house left standing while others around have burned. It could be that there was some external fire resistance or that the fire crews were able to save a house since they attempt to save as much of the structure as possible.

Edit: I am seeing a LOT of pics of trees being the only thing remaining as the human structures all burned. Trees seem a bit more resilient to fast moving fires than the houses.
 
Last edited:
Sharon Hill said:
The Spiked article was written by a political writer, and is not a respectable news publication. If you want the best answer, you look at multiple credible sources, not just one or a few that have cherry picked the data to be contrarian.
Click to expand...
Don't all websites cherry-pick the data they use? If the writer disagrees with a certain dataset (perhaps for ideological reasons) they may decide not to include that data or data analysis.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Don't all websites cherry-pick the data they use? If the writer disagrees with a certain dataset (perhaps for ideological reasons) they may decide not to include that data or data analysis.
Click to expand...
No. They don't. Reliable data comes from reliable sources. The framing of the story can alter the perception by the reader. That's why I noted that it's important to use multiple reliable sources. I also don't get science/nature news from punditry or tabloid sites because they don't understand science/nature and aim to stir controversy and get clicks.
 

Why right-wing influencers are blaming the California wildfires on diversity efforts​

Within a day of wildfires igniting in Los Angeles, right-wing media and influencers began blaming the scale of the destruction on efforts to reduce systemic social inequality, notably diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

Billionaire Elon Musk helped circulate screenshots of the Los Angeles Fire Department's four-year-old 'racial equity action plan,' writing "They prioritized DEI over saving lives and homes."
https://www.npr.org/2025/01/10/nx-s...dfires-dei-diversity-influencers-firefighters

The L.A. Fires Have Started a Misinformation Storm​

From Hollywood-cabal conspiracy theories to misunderstandings around government resources, emotions surrounding the ongoing fires in Los Angeles have kept conspiracy theories going.
(Ironically, this is a firewalled link, sorry) https://www.rollingstone.com/cultur...-misinformation-conspiracy-theory-1235230748/ But this part is awful yet interesting:

On TikTok, much of the discussion around the fires has remained fixated on conspiracy theories surrounding rapper and media mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs. Combs was arrested Sept. 16, and pleaded not guilty to sex trafficking and racketeering charges after a deluge of civil suits and accusations of sexual assault, physical violence, and abuse. (Combs has repeatedly denied the accusations.) Following his arrest, internet users spread wild theories that famous Hollywood actors, producers, and stars were all involved. There were claims that investigators found an underground tunnel connecting Combs’ house to the Playboy mansion nearby, which police could not find evidence for. Now, as the fires grow, a theory that the Palisades fire was started — and will continue — in order to destroy evidence in the Combs case has continued to spread. Several TikTok creators have said the fires were started to purposefully destroy the “Diddy tunnels,” while others argue that the fact that so many celebrity homes were damaged or outright destroyed proves Hollywood is trying to protect their biggest stars. Besides the fact that the case against Combs is ongoing, many of these theories do not take into account that there are not-famous people who live in L.A. whose homes are also being destroyed.
 
Sharon Hill said:
Some things are more resistant to catching fire. A pole or tree has less surface area to catch embers and may have more contained moisture. There were also some instances of a single house left standing while others around have burned. It could be that there was some external fire resistance or that the fire crews were able to save a house since they attempt to save as much of the structure as possible.

Edit: I am seeing a LOT of pics of trees being the only thing remaining as the human structures all burned. Trees seem a bit more resilient to fast moving fires than the houses.
Click to expand...
There's trees right next to burnt out houses still with all their leaves?

With wild fires, the stronger the wind, the hotter the fire and the more the red hot embers get blown in the wind and often a long distance.

The trees in other wild fires weren't resilient to fast moving fires. So the wild fire jumped from house to house but not to the trees right next to the house?
 
Sharon Hill said:
And the use of the Spiked politically biased source for scientific commentary is downright insulting.
Click to expand...
maximus otter said:
a) l cited Spiked as they’d worked out the averages of the acreage burned. Numbers are numbers, they express no political bias.

b) “Politically biased” ? You cite Mother Jones and the Independent, both of which are left-leaning publications.
Click to expand...

I don't say either of you is right or wrong, but we've had long and tedious digressions on other threads about source-selection.

Provided there are cogent points and arguments to refute, it's more productive to get on refuting them than to bicker over whether they're making them in good faith or whether they are worthy of your/our time.

Apart from anything else, we've recently seen multiple public, scientific and academic bodies that would once have been widely accepted as neutral observers unwisely opting to wade into the political arena (endorsing candidates and parties, not simply making the facts plain and letting the public take the next steps).

This has only served to throw suspicion on their research, and there's a steady decline in the amount of truly non-politicised information available--almost everything is now 'spun' to some extent.
 
Sharon Hill said:
Some things are more resistant to catching fire. A pole or tree has less surface area to catch embers and may have more contained moisture. There were also some instances of a single house left standing while others around have burned. It could be that there was some external fire resistance or that the fire crews were able to save a house since they attempt to save as much of the structure as possible.

Edit: I am seeing a LOT of pics of trees being the only thing remaining as the human structures all burned. Trees seem a bit more resilient to fast moving fires than the houses.
Click to expand...
Maybe (I don't know personally), a tree can protect itself ~ up-to-a-point, by having a life-saving capability of lifting more moisture from it's roots somewhat faster, when the heat surrounding the upper trunk is greater than it's normal ground supply functions? :dunno: :thought:
Also, fire moving in one rapid direction would only scorch one side of the trunk which would help them to survive minor burning.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top