Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/2/2026 12:31 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> 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.

That was literally accepted research.