Celebs blaming humans for SoCal fires

harrymanback · October 2007

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20153859,00.html

Comedian George Carlin and actress Jamie Lee Curtis this week both suggested that the devastating wildfires raging in Southern California should not come as a surprise to a population that ravages the environment.

Offering his provocative opinion on The View Wednesday morning, Carlin paraphrased an old comedy rant of his, and characterized the fires as cosmic payback from a planet stretched to its breaking point.

"People are selfish," he said. "These people with the fires and the floods and everything, they overbuild and they put nature to the test, and they get what's coming to them, that's what I say."

Joy Behar replied, "That's a little harsh, George."

But the 70-year-old comic continued: "People think nature is outside of them. They don't take into [themselves] the idea that nature is a part of them." Pointing to his chest, he said, "Nature is in here, and if you're in tune with it, like the Indians – the balance of life, the harmony of nature – if you understand that, you don't overbuild, you don't do all this moron stuff."

Speaking with Entertainment Tonight, Jamie Lee Curtis gave a similarly grim assessment of the situation, suggesting people are in "ultimate denial" about what they're doing to the environment.

"Global warming, combined with people building houses in places they shouldn't, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera," she said. "It just compounds to become, as they call it, a perfect storm experience here. It's not by accident. This isn't an act of God. This is an act of man."

jlew24asu · October 2007

I wonder how big his LA mansion is?

Cosmo · October 2007

But... isn't it sort of true?
...
I mean... 10 years ago, the same fire would have taken out weeds on a hillside. The tragedy is, the hillside now has houses on it. The seasonal fires don't care if it consumes weeds or homes. We do.
...
The same thing goes to the homes built in flood plains. If there are no homes there... it's just high water. With homes... a disaster area, right?

even flow? · October 2007

Cosmo wrote:

But... isn't it sort of true?
...
I mean... 10 years ago, the same fire would have taken out weeds on a hillside. The tragedy is, the hillside now has houses on it. The seasonal fires don't care if it consumes weeds or homes. We do.
...
The same thing goes to the homes built in flood plains. If there are no homes there... it's just high water. With homes... a disaster area, right?

Very true.

even flow? · October 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

I wonder how big his LA mansion is?

If it is not built in the middle of a forest, who really cares how big his mansion is. It is more about where you build not what you build.

Remember everybody saying about New Orleans......"how dumb do you have to be to build a city under sea level". Same as building in a forest which seems to burn every year.

polaris · October 2007

people are selfish and stupid ... no denying that ...

Kel Varnsen · October 2007

Cosmo wrote:

But... isn't it sort of true?
...
I mean... 10 years ago, the same fire would have taken out weeds on a hillside. The tragedy is, the hillside now has houses on it. The seasonal fires don't care if it consumes weeds or homes. We do.
...
The same thing goes to the homes built in flood plains. If there are no homes there... it's just high water. With homes... a disaster area, right?

I think this is true too. Jamie Lee Curtis can blame global warming all she wants ( and don’t get me wrong I am totally for making efforts to reduce the human causes of climate change), but I think this has more to do with wildfires being a part of the natural cycle of nature in the forest or wherever. The fire burns one season cleans out all the burnable crap, and then you are good for many years to come. But if you keep putting out the fires and moving closer to where they might start, the burnable crap builds up and the fires get more and more intense. Then evetually stuff gets so dry and built up and has not burned for a long time that you have situations like this.

Cosmo · October 2007

even flow? wrote:

If it is not built in the middle of a forest, who really cares how big his mansion is. It is more about where you build not what you build.

Remember everybody saying about New Orleans......"how dumb do you have to be to build a city under sea level". Same as building in a forest which seems to burn every year.

...
And... you have to remember... in Southern California... we have 'Brushfire Season'. These hillsides were designed to burn on a regular basis. There was a huge fire in Glendale in 1963 and several homes were lost. If that same area burns today... thousands of homes would be lost.
...
Maybe, instead of moving into the places where the chaparral grows and the mountain lions call home... we should clean up the run down parts of the city where there aren't annual brushfires and mountain lions to maul your spawn.

Cosmo · October 2007

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I think this is true too. Jamie Lee Curtis can blame global warming all she wants ( and don’t get me wrong I am totally for making efforts to reduce the human causes of climate change), but I think this has more to do with wildfires being a part of the natural cycle of nature in the forest or wherever. The fire burns one season cleans out all the burnable crap, and then you are good for many years to come. But if you keep putting out the fires and moving closer to where they might start, the burnable crap builds up and the fires get more and more intense. Then evetually stuff gets so dry and built up and has not burned for a long time that you have situations like this.

...
I agree... Global Warming... not the problem. Where we build... problem.
...
Example... why the HELL would anyone build a house in a place that is nicknamed, 'Tornado Alley'? I mean, the place is fucking called, 'Tornado Alley'!!! Isn't that a big fucking clue???

chromiam · October 2007

The biggest problem is that controlled burns are not allowed to get rid of all the old and dried up brush so that the land can regenerate itself. If it was kept in check, the wildfires could be contained much easier.

norm · October 2007

uncontrolled growth into previous wilderness areas

the driest year since records have been kept

winds the can turn a small campfire into a 10,000 acre fire within minutes

unfortunately, this was bound to happen

RolandTD20Kdrummer · October 2007

"So you say these hills catch fire all the time, and there's constant threat of earthquakes?

"yes sir...all the time...ravaging fires...the big quake is coming....great view of the ocean though"

"perfect...let's build"

Cosmo · October 2007

chromiam wrote:

The biggest problem is that controlled burns are not allowed to get rid of all the old and dried up brush so that the land can regenerate itself. If it was kept in check, the wildfires could be contained much easier.

...
No funding. No one wants to pay for that. Even if the tax was called, "The Tax Specifically Used To Pay For Control Burns So People's Houses Don't Go Up In Flames Tax" and actually did exactly that... no one would go for it. Especially, the people who don't live on the hillsides... they don't give a shit about them.

polaris · October 2007

Cosmo wrote:

...
I agree... Global Warming... not the problem. Where we build... problem.
...
Example... why the HELL would anyone build a house in a place that is nicknamed, 'Tornado Alley'? I mean, the place is fucking called, 'Tornado Alley'!!! Isn't that a big fucking clue???

climate change could be a factor ... extensive drought (similar to what georgia is facing) can lead to the dry tinder ... plus, extreme weather events include wind ... i just got back from the grand canyon area and it's blowing 75 km/h in some spots ...

obviously, the bigger emphasis is on fire suppression and sprawl but climate change is definitely a contributor to this problem ...

TrixieCat · October 2007

Cosmo wrote:

...
I agree... Global Warming... not the problem. Where we build... problem.
...
Example... why the HELL would anyone build a house in a place that is nicknamed, 'Tornado Alley'? I mean, the place is fucking called, 'Tornado Alley'!!! Isn't that a big fucking clue???

I agree. Also, hi, let's build a house on the side of a mountain that is known to have landslides. Oh, my house slid down the mountain, let me put up another one.
I am not saying anyone deserves any of this, but sometimes we need to think a bit more about the environment first.

Kel Varnsen · October 2007

chromiam wrote:

The biggest problem is that controlled burns are not allowed to get rid of all the old and dried up brush so that the land can regenerate itself. If it was kept in check, the wildfires could be contained much easier.

I saw a show on PBS awhile back about I think it was Yellowstone park and how they deal with forest fires. Some guy in charge (the head ranger or the fire marshal or something) basically said they could do controlled burns every year and it would significantly reduce the chance of massive forest fires. The only drawback was that every year when they would do the burns the people around would be irritated by the smoke. The had some sort of town meeting and it was amazing how many people living near the park came to bitch about how they didn't want to be inconvenienced by the smoke every year (even though it could prevent their houses from possibly burning down).

RolandTD20Kdrummer · October 2007

in other news....

another trailer park goes up in tornado alley...

whoosh!

norm · October 2007

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I saw a show on PBS awhile back about I think it was Yellowstone park and how they deal with forest fires. Some guy in charge (the head ranger or the fire marshal or something) basically said they could do controlled burns every year and it would significantly reduce the chance of massive forest fires. The only drawback was that every year when they would do the burns the people around would be irritated by the smoke. The had some sort of town meeting and it was amazing how many people living near the park came to bitch about how they didn't want to be inconvenienced by the smoke every year (even though it could prevent their houses from possibly burning down).

yep......aren't people the best? :rolleyes:

Cosmo · October 2007

polaris wrote:

climate change could be a factor ... extensive drought (similar to what georgia is facing) can lead to the dry tinder ... plus, extreme weather events include wind ... i just got back from the grand canyon area and it's blowing 75 km/h in some spots ...

obviously, the bigger emphasis is on fire suppression and sprawl but climate change is definitely a contributor to this problem ...

...
But, we do have these cycles. This isn't the first time Southern California has been put on water rationing alert. Back in 1978, we had strict water rationing. Car washing, watering lawns, all that stuff.
The thing is... now, the droughts are worst because of Global Warming. All the more reason to quit building down here.
...'
Look at Southern Orange County... Brushfires and mudslides in the past haven't been such a big deal. A huge fire through Irvine.. Santa Margarita... and look out. People are going to be affected.

jlew24asu · October 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

in other news....

another trailer park goes up in tornado alley...

whoosh!

do you find yourself funny? nice thing to joke about. classy guy

RolandTD20Kdrummer · October 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

do you find yourself funny? nice thing to joke about. classy guy

Dude that's gold.

loosen up your tampon a bit...

Celebs blaming humans for SoCal fires

Comments

Categories