Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On Jul 31, 2026 at 4:02:41 PM EDT, "Tara" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jul 31, 2026 at 3:46:18 PM EDT, "dart200"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> On 7/31/26 12:35 PM, Tara wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> why are you such a dumb fucking liar tara???
>> 
>> all u discussed was the size of the forest, u did not discuss the fact
>> the conventional controlled burns do not effectively mitigate fire risk
>> in boreal forests, nor the increased costs of the various techniques
>> that must be employed instead
>> 
>> and you still haven't even after i've pointed it out in several posts.
>> clear evidence of refusing to face the facts like a retarded boomer

Of course we can't do anything about fires in the boreal forest. That's a
given ffs We can only do what we can to protect the boundaries. !!! 
Idiot!



>> 
>>> classic fucking abdfg con
>>> 
>>> #god
> 
>