[sam345]

Is that really what you're concerned about that somebody would ask a soft ball question about proposed solutions? Why is questioning the buildup of brush a crazy idea? It's been a mainstream concern for years. I really don't think it's healthy for any inquiry to propose a particular mindset and shut down alternative thinking. It doesn't seem very scientific or intelligent to me.

[gman83]

The issue is that the rhetorical game being played is that by saying the risk is all due to the buildup of combustible materials, it shifts the blame to California's Democratic politicians and away from Republican fossil fuel donors. Clearly in a good faith discussion we'd suggest better forest management, as well as doing everything possible to combat fossil fuel emissions. The problem is that it's not a good faith discussion.

[Dylan16807]

Am I dumb to think that the main worry from fossil fuels right now is CO2, not air quality? (at least while environmental regulations are still mostly intact) It seems reasonable to me to ask about forest management for air quality.

Maybe there was some other sign they didn't ask in good faith? But I have no idea what dumb thing trump said you're even talking about.

[pessimizer]

Notice how pro-free speech = pro-clearing brush buildup?

It's so weird how people join these partisan factions that have a full package of beliefs that you have to be evil not to share. Woe to your job if you say that you think brush buildup should be cleared; you're obviously racist.

[wredcoll]

California, and every other agency that attempts to manage forests, does clear brush, in a variety of different methods and approaches.

It turns out the actual problem is more complicated than "duh just light some fires!"