Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 7/31/26 3:11 PM, Tara wrote:
> dart200 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 7/31/26 1:28 PM, Tara wrote:
>>> 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!
>>>
>>
>> great so u never mentioned that to joolian or his mindbogglingly stupid
>> article
>>
>> u only admitted it after i pressed for several comments, so i have no
>> reason to believe u would have ever mentioned it otherwise.
> 
> Chill. I think I said something to the effect that we have vast forest that
> we can’t do anything about. Maybe not but I don’t understand why you’re so
> on about it. Pick the battles that matter. Or maybe just take a break eh
> 

the freaking article suggest climate change is not a cause of wildfire 
implying it's largely a problem of mismanagement and suppression...

completely ignoring that boreal forests, where the largest increase in 
risk is seen, are largely not managed anyways due to not only the sheer 
size but also the fact that managing fuel costs ~10x that of temperate 
forest. normal controlled burns aren't an option cause the risks are 
just different.

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

-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃