Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

dart200 <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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...

I didn’t address that point in the article. If it is there I glossed over
it. 
My prerogative. 
I think I was mostly talking about the smoke.  There’s a time for
everything eh. 
Anyway, I’m off now 





> 
> 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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>