Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:21:43 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 7/31/2026 6:34 PM, dart200 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...
>> 
>> 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.
>I think the expectation is a warming climate will be dryer and that will 
>increase wildfires.
>
>Satellite data only goes back to the 1980s. But there's solid scientific 
>evidence based on fire scar date from tree rings on old growth trees and 
>studies of sediment data that shows reconstructed wildfire history over 
>thousands of years.
>
>That evidence indicates that during the 20th century in North America 
>there's been fewer acres burned than in previous periods. They're 
>calling it a "wildfire drought".
>
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11811286/
>https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1112839109
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3295264/
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388852965

Strange how you can come up with results that show the exact opposite
of accepted research.

Aren't awards for crappy research, crappy ideas?  Unnobel?
-- 
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away