Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On Jul 31, 2026 at 3:11:12 PM EDT, "dart200"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 7/31/26 11:25 AM, Julian wrote:
>> On 31/07/2026 19:06, Tara wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 2026 at 12:40:32 PM EDT, "Wilson" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 7/30/2026 3:50 PM, Tara wrote:
>>>>> Julian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/07/2026 19:56, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:53:09 PM EDT, "Julian"
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2026 19:29, Tara wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2026 at 2:04:17 PM EDT, "Julian"
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Sadly he was proved right. So was I. After I warned in these
>>>>>>>>>> very pages
>>>>>>>>>> last year that government policy was worsening the fire risk on
>>>>>>>>>> moorland, it gives me no pleasure to say: ‘I told you so.’
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Matt Ridley
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Indigenous peoples in North America have been conrolling the
>>>>>>>>> threat of wild
>>>>>>>>> fires with prescribed/controlled burns for centuries. Canada is
>>>>>>>>> looking to do
>>>>>>>>> the same in co-operation with our native people. We have a
>>>>>>>>> problem doing this
>>>>>>>>> however because of the acessibility and vastness of our forests.
>>>>>>>>> But in a
>>>>>>>>> country the size of Britain (and other European countries), it
>>>>>>>>> seems to me
>>>>>>>>> that controlled fires are a no brainer.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Are inaccessible fires in vast forests really a problem?
>>>>>>>> I think they're as likely good for the land's long term health.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There is that, but an uncontrolled fire can massively grow and
>>>>>>> send a lot of
>>>>>>> smoke to people populated areas.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A bit like a volcano.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yeah like that.
>>>> 
>>>> The northeast US is hundreds of miles from the wildfires yet we've had
>>>> serious air quality warnings this year and last. A few weeks ago it
>>>> literally dimmed the sun for several days, making what was otherwise a
>>>> clear day look cloudy.
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wildfires-smoke-millions-exposed-
>>>> midwest-northeast-us/
>>>> 
>>>> Those pictures are not an exaggeration. That's what it really looked
>>>> like.
>>>> 
>>>> Meanwhile the idiot treehuggers think they know what's best.
>>> 
>>> I am an admitted tree hugger but I am also a realist and think that
>>> one answer
>>> here is controlled burning. Another is education and strictly enforced
>>> laws
>>> against those who are careless and start fires through laziness and
>>> ignorance,
>>> clearing vegetation around and near dwellings and building fire resistent
>>> homes.
>> 
>> That would probably be more effective than increasing the price
>> of petrol, gas and electricity for already stretched workers.
>> 
> 
> jooliean you truly are a useless fucking retard. this ofc isn't written
> for u cause ur determined to take ur damned ignorance to the grave, but
> for the record:
> 
> not only are boreal forest are far too vast to effectively mitigate
> increased risk from climate change, meaning we haven't even been
> engaging in serious fire suppression for the much of forest so that's
> _not_ the cause like cons desperate wants to believe; just controlled
> burns don't even effectively mitigate risk as the ecology of a boreal
> forest is different than a temperate one, so it requires fuel management
> strategies that are far more labor intensive

Ummm. if you care to look back a bit, the problem with boreal forests (in
Canada) has already been addressed.