"Maui is one of the wettest places on Earth." Oh really? I've driven on the arid side. It's like a desert.

Let's see what the data suggests, rather than your "debunking" anecdote.

Haleakala influences weather all around the volcano. Average annual rainfall varies from about 400 inches (10.16m) in the high-elevation rain forest above Hana to 10 inches (25 cm) in Kihei, only about 15 minutes apart.

Only the high reaches get the 400 inches, but I'm gonna call over 33 feet of rain a pretty solid "wettest places on earth." Yes, in the west apparently there isn't a whole lot of rain, but the water from the heights goes somewhere, suggesting there may be many rivers, ponds and lakes, etc. Indeed, when you look at the map, there are many of those.

I'm not saying that the water is, or should be, playing a significant part in fire management. Who knows what part it is playing (or not playing as the case may be). I'm also not saying the authors statement of "wettest places on Earth" is necessarily applicable, because there are some places that receive very little rainfall, but it is one of the wettest places on earth by an overall measurement, and it's not hard to forgive that potential, but understandable blunder. Additionally, your anecdotal statement of "I drove there once" is not proper sleuthing, and I have no idea why you would attempt to "debunk" in that manner. That is straight up gaslighting level.

The writer ignores the fact that fire crews already fought a brush fire earlier that day, leaving it when they assumed it was 100% contained.

I do not see how the author makes this into any important point at all. I didn't even see it addressed. His criticisms seem valid in regards to firefighter response. Indeed, the very statement you made quoted above is exactly the type of shit put out by the media to create false beliefs, and here you are espousing it as some sort of truth.

While I am certainly not suggesting the article is itself a better "truth," or that I agree with his assessment on everything, because I most certainly do not, but he does make numerous solid points on many of the pictures and some of his analysis. I personally don't throw a piece out just because I disagree with some of the parts of it. In any investigation, a person is bound to get something wrong. Overall, I thought it was thought provoking and worth a read and discussion.

Regardless of my assessment, your attempt to "debunk" it didn't actually address anything, and that which you attempted was an address of the gaslighting variety on both counts.

"Maui is one of the wettest places on Earth." Oh really? I've driven on the arid side. It's like a desert.

Let's see what the data suggests, rather than your "debunking" anecdote.

Haleakala influences weather all around the volcano. Average annual rainfall varies from about 400 inches (10.16m) in the high-elevation rain forest above Hana to 10 inches (25 cm) in Kihei, only about 15 minutes apart.

Only the high reaches get the 400 inches, but I'm gonna call over 33 feet of rain a pretty solid "wettest places on earth." Yes, in the west apparently there isn't a whole lot of rain, but the water from the heights goes somewhere, suggesting there may be many rivers, ponds and lakes, etc. Indeed, when you look at the map, there are many of those.

I'm not saying that the water is, or should be, playing a significant part in fire management. Who knows what part it is playing (or not playing as the case may be). I'm also not saying the authors statement of "wettest places on Earth" is necessarily applicable, because there are some places that receive very little rainfall, but it is one of the wettest places on earth by an overall measurement, and it's not hard to forgive that potential, but understandable blunder. Additionally, your anecdotal statement of "I drove there once" is not proper sleuthing, and I have no idea why you would attempt to "debunk" in that manner. That is straight up gaslighting level.

The writer ignores the fact that fire crews already fought a brush fire earlier that day, leaving it when they assumed it was 100% contained.

I do not see how the author makes this into any important point at all. I didn't even see it addressed. His criticisms seem valid in regards to firefighter response. Indeed, the very statement you made quoted above is exactly the type of shit put out by the media to create false beliefs, and here you are espousing it as some sort of truth.

While I am certainly not suggesting the article is itself a better "truth," or that I agree with his assessment on everything, because I most certainly do not, but he does make numerous solid points on many of the pictures and some of his analysis. I personally don't throw a piece out just because I disagree with some of the pieces of it. In any investigation, a person is bound to get something wrong. Overall, I thought it was thought provoking and worth a read and discussion.

Regardless of my assessment, your attempt to "debunk" it didn't actually address anything, and that which you attempted was an address of the gaslighting variety on both counts.

"Maui is one of the wettest places on Earth." Oh really? I've driven on the arid side. It's like a desert.

Let's see what the data suggests, rather than your "debunking" anecdote.

Haleakala influences weather all around the volcano. Average annual rainfall varies from about 400 inches (10.16m) in the high-elevation rain forest above Hana to 10 inches (25 cm) in Kihei, only about 15 minutes apart.

Only the high reaches get the 400 inches, but I'm gonna call over 33 feet of rain a pretty solid "wettest places on earth." Yes, in the west apparently there isn't a whole lot of rain, but the water from the heights goes somewhere, suggesting there may be many rivers, ponds and lakes, etc. Indeed, when you look at the map, there are many of those.

I'm not saying that the water is, or should be, playing a significant part in fire management. Who knows what part it is playing (or not playing as the case may be). I'm also not saying the authors statement of "wettest places on Earth" is necessarily applicable, because there are some places that receive very little rainfall, but it is one of the wettest places on earth by an overall measurement, and it's not hard to forgive that potential, but understandable blunder. Additionally, your anecdotal statement of "I drove there once" is not proper sleuthing, and I have no idea why you would attempt to "debunk" in that manner. That is straight up gaslighting level.

The writer ignores the fact that fire crews already fought a brush fire earlier that day, leaving it when they assumed it was 100% contained.

I do not see how the author makes this into any important point at all. I didn't even see it addressed. His criticisms seem valid in regards to firefighter response. Indeed, the very statement you made quoted above is exactly the type of shit put out by the media to create false beliefs, and here you are espousing it as some sort of truth.

While I am certainly not suggesting the article is itself a better "truth," or that I agree with his assessment on everything, because I most certainly do not, but he does make numerous solid points on many of the pictures and some of his analysis. I personally don't throw a piece out just because I disagree with some of the pieces of it. In any investigation, a person is bound to get something wrong. Overall, I thought it was thought provoking and worth a read and discussion.

Regardless of my assessment, your attempt to "debunk" it seems like gaslighting, as you didn't actually address anything, and that which you attempted was an address of the gaslighting variety on both counts.

"Maui is one of the wettest places on Earth." Oh really? I've driven on the arid side. It's like a desert.

Let's see what the data suggests, rather than your "debunking" anecdote.

Haleakala influences weather all around the volcano. Average annual rainfall varies from about 400 inches (10.16m) in the high-elevation rain forest above Hana to 10 inches (25 cm) in Kihei, only about 15 minutes apart.

Only the high reaches get the 400 inches, but I'm gonna call over 33 feet of rain a pretty solid "wettest places on earth." Yes, in the west apparently there isn't a whole lot of rain, but the water from the heights goes somewhere, suggesting there may be many rivers, ponds and lakes, etc. Indeed, when you look at the map, there are many of those.

I'm not saying that the water is, or should be, playing a significant part in fire management. Who knows what part it is playing (or not playing as the case may be). I'm also not saying the authors statement of "wettest places on Earth" is necessarily applicable, because there are some places that receive very little rainfall, but it is by an overall measurement, and it's not hard to forgive that potential, but understandable blunder. Additionally, your anecdotal statement of "I drove there once" is not proper sleuthing, and I have no idea why you would attempt to "debunk" in that manner. That is straight up gaslighting level.

The writer ignores the fact that fire crews already fought a brush fire earlier that day, leaving it when they assumed it was 100% contained.

I do not see how the author makes this into any important point at all. I didn't even see it addressed. His criticisms seem valid in regards to firefighter response. Indeed, the very statement you made quoted above is exactly the type of shit put out by the media to create false beliefs, and here you are espousing it as some sort of truth.

While I am certainly not suggesting the article is itself a better "truth," or that I agree with his assessment on everything, because I most certainly do not, but he does make numerous solid points on many of the pictures and some of his analysis. I personally don't throw a piece out just because I disagree with some of the pieces of it. In any investigation, a person is bound to get something wrong. Overall, I thought it was thought provoking and worth a read and discussion.

Regardless of my assessment, your attempt to "debunk" it seems like gaslighting, as you didn't actually address anything, and that which you attempted was an address of the gaslighting variety on both counts.

"Maui is one of the wettest places on Earth." Oh really? I've driven on the arid side. It's like a desert.

Let's see what the data suggests, rather than your "debunking" anecdote.

Haleakala influences weather all around the volcano. Average annual rainfall varies from about 400 inches (10.16m) in the high-elevation rain forest above Hana to 10 inches (25 cm) in Kihei, only about 15 minutes apart.

Only the high reaches get the 400 inches, but I'm gonna call over 33 feet of rain a pretty solid "wettest places on earth." Yes, in the west apparently there isn't a whole lot of rain, but the water from the heights goes somewhere, suggesting there may be many rivers, ponds and lakes, etc. Indeed, when you look at the map, there are many of those.

I'm not saying that the water is, or should be, playing a significant part in fire management. Who knows what part it is playing (or not playing as the case may be). I'm also not saying the authors statement of "wettest places on Earth" is necessarily applicable, because there are some places that receive very little rainfall, but your anecdotal statement of "I drove there once" is not proper sleuthing, and I have no idea why you would attempt to "debunk" in that manner. That is straight up gaslighting level.

The writer ignores the fact that fire crews already fought a brush fire earlier that day, leaving it when they assumed it was 100% contained.

I do not see how the author makes this into any important point at all. I didn't even see it addressed. His criticisms seem valid in regards to firefighter response. Indeed, the very statement you made quoted above is exactly the type of shit put out by the media to create false beliefs, and here you are espousing it as some sort of truth.

While I am certainly not suggesting the article is itself a better "truth," or that I agree with his assessment on everything, because I most certainly do not, but he does make numerous solid points on many of the pictures and some of his analysis. I personally don't throw a piece out just because I disagree with some of the pieces of it. In any investigation, a person is bound to get something wrong. Overall, I thought it was thought provoking and worth a read and discussion.

Regardless of my assessment, your attempt to "debunk" it seems like gaslighting, as you didn't actually address anything, and that which you attempted was an address of the gaslighting variety on both counts.