It Takes An "Expert" To Be This Dumb

Huffpost Admits LAFD Failed To Plan--And Therefore Planned To Fail

We live in a media age where “fact checker” is considered a pejorative on a par with “slattern”, “thot”, and “whore.”

Scratch that. Slatterns, thots and whores are probably considered more respectable than fact checkers.

Huffpost gives us yet another reason to hold fact checkers in low regard with a propaganda piece “fact checking” Lara Trump’s recent comments on Fox News regading the Palisades Fire.

The very empty Santa Ynez Reservoir in Pacific Palisades

“These people cannot help themselves,” President-elect Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law said of Democrats. “You just referenced how no one wants to take any blame for anything in California. Instead, they are blaming climate change.”

“I would really love for someone out there to explain to me how climate change is the reason that the reservoirs were dry, that there was no water in the fire hydrants,” she added.

Huffpost staked its claim straight away, making a clear implication that Lara Trump was simply lying—and contradicted itself in the process (emphasis mine).

California’s reservoirs were not dry, though firefighters did encounter issues with water supply to hydrants due to high demand. The catastrophic wildfires, driven by intense winds and tinder-dry conditions, erupted after a critically dry period — Los Angeles recorded just 0.8 mm of rain from July 1 to January. As California suffered through one of its hottest summers on record, vegetation that had proliferated during an intensely wet spell dried out to create an abundance of kindling.

Huffpost has an even more basic problem, however: the rest of corporate media has already reported the same facts Lara Trump was referencing.

The mission of All Facts Matter is to push back against exactly this sort of propaganda. Without further ado, let’s explore all the ways both Huffpost and its “experts” are engaging in epic stupidity.

The Santa Ynez Reservoir WAS Dry

The brutal—and potentially criminal—reality is that the Santa Ynez reservoir in the Pacific Palisades community most assuredly was dry, and it has been reported by the Los Angeles Times as such.

While we should not presume too much on the intellect of politicians, surely even the Los Angeles City Council is not so dumb as to want “transparency” on a full reservoir.

More embarrassingly for Huffpost, however, is that the reservoir has been empty for months—and the LA City Council would like to know why.

Councilmember Traci Park proposed that the L.A. Department of Water and Power present “its root cause analysis of the water pressure challenges that resulted in lower water pressure and dry hydrants,” in some areas of Pacific Palisades, as well as recommendations for addressing the issues. In the same motion, Park urged the council to ask the utility to explain why the Santa Ynez Reservoir in Pacific Palisades has been out of commission for months.

The current satellite image of the reservoir on Google Maps as of this writing shows that the reservoir is indeed empty.

Former Los Angeles Department of Water and Power general manager Martin Adams has stated that the reservoir’s 117 million gallon capacity would have made a difference in fighting the Palisades fire.

DWP officials have acknowledged that had the reservoir been up and running as the Palisades fire broke out Jan. 7, it would have augmented water pressure. Former DWP general manager Martin Adams told The Times that the reservoir would have helped, but would not have been a panacea to a system that was strained by tremendous demand.

“It might have deferred the inevitable, but without doing calculations, its hard to know by how much,” Adams said. “It wouldn’t have lasted forever and would not have been a fix all.”

While one can argue that “climate change” is the underlying reason for the hills in and around Pacific Palisades were sufficiently dry as to make for perfect tinder to spread a wildfire, that explanation does not even begin to address why a crucial reservoir was completely empty when the fire broke out January 7.

We should pause to acknowledge that Adams is correct that one full reservoir would not have been a complete solution to the issues that plagued the firefighting efforts particularly in the earliest moments of the Palisades Fire. However, Adams’ comments highlight the reality that eyewitness accounts indicate that government incompetence was on display from the very beginning.

Slow Reponse Doomed Pacific Palisades

One does not need to be either a climate scientist or even a chemist to understand that small fire which is quickly extinguished does not become a big fire.

An eyewitness to the Palisades Fire, former US Attorney Michel Valentine, who claims to have seen the initial smoke plume from when the fire first broke out has gone on record slamming Mayor Karen Bass and LAFD Fire Chief Kristin Crowley for a slow response when the Palisades fire was small.

Valentine — who said he lives at the top of the Pacific Palisades, next to the ridge line where the fire broke out — described seeing the initial plume of smoke grow rapidly in size last Tuesday. The former federal attorney said his wife called 911, but it took nearly 45 minutes for a helicopter to respond and dump water on the fire.

“I have no idea why that is,” Valentine said, responding to why it took so long to respond. “It could have been confined. It wouldn’t have touched any of the homes.”

“You’re talking to somebody that’s been up in this community for 40 years, and I’ve seen fires. I’ve seen fires during those 40 years, and there’s always been a good response. I don’t know what happened this time,” he added.

While eyewitness testimony can be dangerous and misleading, one would certainly hope that a former US Attorney would rank among the more meticulous and mindful of witnesses. If Valentine’s time estimate between his wife calling 911 and a helicopter dumping water on the Palisades Fire when it was still just a brush fire is correct, the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Fire Department missed the opportunity to extinguish the blaze while it was still small and manageable.

Had that firefighting helicopter dropped its load of water on the fire within 10 minutes instead of 45, might the fire have been put out quickly, preventing it from ever getting as big as it has since? While we don’t know that for certain, we cannot rule out that possibility.

While one can argue that “climate change” is the underlying reason for the hills in and around Pacific Palisades were sufficiently dry as to make for perfect tinder to spread a wildfire, that explanation does not even begin to address why it took 45 minutes for the LAFD to respond to a 911 call reporting the beginning of the Palisades Fire.

The Fire Hydrants DID Run Dry

The Los Angeles Times also backs up Lara Trump’s second factual claim—that the fire hydrants ran dry.

While journalistic standards have indeed deteroriated over the years, surely we can safely assume that the editors of the Los Angeles Times understand what the phrase “why hydrants ran dry” means—that the fire hydrants in the Pacific Palisades area suffered from low water and consequently low water pressure.

Former DWP General Manager Martin Adams again tells the LA Times why this happened: the water system simply wasn’t designed to fight a fire of the size of the Palisades fire.

The water system that supplies neighborhoods simply doesn’t have the capacity to deliver such large volumes of water over several hours, said Martin Adams, former general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

“The system has never been designed to fight a wildfire that then envelops a community,” Adams said in an interview with The Times.

LAFD compensates for the limitations of the water system by using air drops of water and fire retardant on wildfires.

Alas for Pacific Palisades, strong Santa Ana winds grounded the aircraft that would have been used to fight the blaze, forcing the fire department to rely on the local water system as well as tanker trucks dispatched to the fire’s front lines.

“AHA!” exclaims the climate change alarmist, “that proves that this fire is solely the result of climate change, and there was nothing LAFD could have done differently!”

Unfortunately for our hypothetical smug but woke climate change alarmist, this line of reasoning also falls flat.

The strongest Santa Ana winds on record occurred on December 4, 2011—just over thirteen years ago. The LAFD has had thirteen years knowing that Santa Ana winds can reach speeds of 97mph, which is to say LAFD has had thirteen years of knowing that Santa Ana winds are capable of grounding firefighting aircraft.

The LAFD has had thirteen years to have alternate and contingency plans developed for fighting fires during extreme Santa Ana wind conditions. That the record is thirteen years old means the LAFD knew—or should have known—that the worst case scenario was Santa Ana winds of at least 97 mph.

Even if one were to concede the point that man-made climate change is a real thing—which I do not—that the LAFD was unprepared for Santa Ana winds which were not at record levels is a failure of planning which cannot be attributed to climate change, nor to anything else but the corrupt politics of Los Angeles City Hall.

“Experts” Are “Fact Checking” Lara Trump Without Actual Facts

Huffpost’s use of “experts” to “fact check” Lara Trump should be utterly humiliating to that publication, because said “experts” don’t even have facts with which to impugn Lara Trump.

Faith Kearns of the University of Arizona thinks that all of the environmental challenges surrounding the Palisades Fire were new and had never before been encountered.

“This is a really complex, complicated and emergent issue that just hasn’t been on the radar for mostly anyone, and so I just don’t think that there is individual blame to go around at all,” Faith Kearns, director of research communications at Arizona State University’s Arizona Water Initiative, told NBC News of the water management issue.

Excuse me? Wildfires haven’t been on anyone’s radar in California?

Six of the ten most destructive wildfires in California history have occurred in the past ten years. If wildfire response planning hasn’t been “on the radar for mostly anyone” in California, I for one would like to know why in the Nine Circles Of Hell not?

Wildfires are not an “emergent issue” in California.

Dry weather and drought are not an “emergent issue” in California.

Dry weather and drought in winter are not an “emergent issue” in Los Angeles County. While most of the county is currently rated by the US Drought Monitor as under “severe drought”, from 2015 through the beginning of 2017 some 80% of the county was under the worst rating of “Exceptional Drought”

Los Angeles has endured worse drought conditions than what it is currently experiencing and somehow managed to avoid being reduced to ashes—so why is this relatively more moderate drought proving to be so much more devastating?

Regardless of what explanation one wishes to put forward for the dry weather and the drought, the recent history of California weather is that there are dry seasons and there are droughts. Both the Los Angeles Fire Department and the Department of Water and Power have a political and moral obligation at the very least to develop plans for responding to wildfires, and a political and moral obligation to take into account any recent weather extremes to ensure they are ready to meet the widest array of potential conditions.

We know this to be so because the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 identifies addressing all hazards and threats as a key element of the planning process:

1.1.9. PLANNING SHOULD CONSIDER ALL HAZARDS AND THREATS

Considering all threats and hazards when addressing emergency functions helps identify essential, common tasks and those responsible for accomplishing them. Planners can address common operational functions in their base plans instead of having unique plans for every type of hazard or threat. For example, floods, wildfires and hazardous material releases may lead a jurisdiction to issue evacuation orders and open shelters. Even though each hazard’s characteristics (e.g., speed of onset, size of the affected area) are different, the general tasks for conducting evacuation and shelter operations are the same.

FEMA even acknowledges the imperative of analytical methods and logical thought processes during the disaster planning process.

1.1.8. PLANNING SHOULD USE ANALYTICAL APPROACHES TO ADDRESS UNCERTAINTY

By following a set of logical steps that includes gathering and analyzing information, determining objectives and developing options to achieve the objectives, planning allows a jurisdiction or regional response structure to work through complex situations. Planning helps a jurisdiction identify the resources at its disposal to perform required tasks and achieve desired outcomes and target levels of performance. Using this deliberative process to consider and address the diverse roles, responsibilities, authorities and capabilities of various partner organizations improves unity of effort when incidents occur. Rather than specifying every detail of how to achieve the objective, an effective plan structures thinking and supports insight, creativity and initiative in the face of an uncertain and fluid environment. While using a prescribed planning process does not guarantee success, inadequate plans and insufficient planning are proven contributors to failure.

Let me repeat the final sentence of that paragraph for emphasis: “While using a prescribed planning process does not guarantee success, inadequate plans and insufficient planning are proven contributors to failure.”

Again, even if one were to concede that California’s recent weather conditions were a consequence of amorphous “climate change”, the entire point of disaster planning and disaster preparedness is to take into account that such weather conditions are possible regardless of the causes behind those conditions. The reason even FEMA gets behind logical, analytical, and withal detailed planning is because the tried and trite cliche of “failing to plan is planning to fail” happens to be true.

Did the LAFD consider that they might not be able to deploy aircraft to drop water and fire retardant of fires during strong Santa Ana winds? Apparently they did not.

Did the LAFD consider that slow response times early in a fire event allow a fire to grow faster and larger than it might otherwise? Apparently they did not.

We know the LAFD considered the option of pre-positioning firefighters and fire engines in the Palisades area and elsewhere. We know this because they chose not to do so.

Fire officials chose not to order the firefighters to remain on duty for a second shift last Tuesday as the winds were building — which would have doubled the personnel on hand — and staffed just five of more than 40 engines that are available to aid in battling wildfires, according to the records obtained by The Times, as well as interviews with LAFD officials and former chiefs with knowledge of city operations.

Managerial decisions of this sort are many things, including possibly idiotic and arguably insane, but the one thing they most assuredly are not is the result of “climate change”.

Even in California people’s brains do not work differently just because the climate is presumably changing—although within LA City Hall and the LAFD that may be because people’s brains simply do not work, period.

“Climate Change” Is Not An Excuse

The fundamental problem with the entire “oh, it’s climate change” narrative is that the very nature of civic planning and city governance means that narrative is permenantly disqualified from ever being a plausible explanation for catastrophes.

The devilish detail which becomes the Catch-22 for the climate change alarmist is that if the climate change alarmist can think to blame climate change, the climate change alarmist has already assumed the climate is changing.

If the Democrats who run California and its many cities are that persuaded of climate change, then their obligation is to plan for responding to events amidst a changing climate. Even FEMA accepts this point as part of its disaster planning best practices.

I have written multiple disaster recovery and business continuity plans during my career as a Voice and Data Network Engineer. I have had to activate portions of some of those plans during various regional and even nationwide network outages.

I can attest from lengthy professional experience (25 years) in IT of the imperative of being analytical, methodical, and logical in disaster preparedness and disaster planning. I know first hand the importance of being disciplined and thorough in that planning process.

Even if one accepts the assertions of climate change alarmism as real, the obligation of the LAFD and the City of Los Angeles is to develop wildfire response plans as well as other disaster response plans which take that climate change into account.

It is clear that the current wildfire response plans of the LAFD are inadequate. Los Angeles is by no means experiencing the worst dry weather it has ever had, and yet the LAFD was simply not prepared to respond to the fires when they occurred.

Lack of preparation is not “climate change”, it’s “failure to plan.”

It is clear that the communication and coordination among city departments within Los Angeles are inadequate. The Santa Ynez reservoir is a strategically important reservoir for firefighting, yet apparently no one bothered to have a workaround for when the reservoir was unavailable, even though the reservoir has been offline for months.

Lack of communication and coordination are not “climate change”. They are “planning to fail.”

Contrary to the abysmal propaganda of HuffPost, Lara Trump is spot on with her question. I, too, would like to hear how climate change is the reason that the Santa Ynez Reservoir was dry, and the reason that there was no water in the fire hydrants.

Corporate media needs to stop pretending that “climate change” is a legitimate explanation for failures of government. Even if climate change were an actual ongoing phenomenon, it is still the duty of government to adapt, to plan, and to prepare accordingly. It is still the duty of government to take whatever they perceive as the trajectory for current climatological models and its impact on natural disasters such as wildfires, and plan accordingly.

The insipid inanity of corporate media and California Democrats defaulting to cries of “climate change” over the Los Angeles wildfires is that such cries are by definition an admission of failing to plan. Huffpost and all its array of “experts” are admitting that the State of California and the City of Los Angeles planned to fail—and succeeded in doing so.

It takes an “expert” to be this dumb.