Michael Schellenberger

Rank 35 of 47

Score -17

-2

And not only was the Santa Ynez reservoir off-line, there is good reason to believe that it could have been the difference-maker in the Pacific Palisades fire, which continues to rage out of control, with just 11% of it contained.

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

Had a massive water reservoir been online, it wouldn't have made much difference to LA firefighters, say the media. In fact, it would have made a massive difference. And now a whistleblower has come forward to say the reservoir should never have been drained in the first place.

1/12/2025, 7:24:43 PM

In reply to:

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

Newsom and Bass are the leading purveyors of mis- and disinformation. Receipts here:

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

As a new wave of fire and high winds threaten Los Angeles, the media is reporting that California’s elected leaders are not to blame and that right-wing influencers and Donald Trump are spreading misinformation and politicizing a tragedy. Racial and gender quotas through DEI…

Michael Shellenberger

@shellenberger

False info about the LA fires is spreading on social media, say Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass. Yes — theirs. The reason they hate social media is because it allowed us to debunk their false claims that the reservoirs were full and they didn't cut the fire budgets.

MAZE

@mazemoore

Gavin Newsom doing what he does best.

The statement critiques the handling of a reservoir and its impact on firefighting efforts, suggesting mismanagement by public officials. It implies that misinformation is being spread by these officials, which is a serious accusation.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement implies negligence and misinformation by public officials, which could be harmful if not substantiated. [-1]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
The statement does not engage in personal attacks but questions the actions of public figures, which is within the bounds of public discourse.
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
The statement challenges the actions of public officials, which can be seen as constructive criticism if based on evidence, but it lacks detailed substantiation in this context. [-1]