Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/2/2026 10:05 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 12:57:40 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I'm sure you would claim that.  However, the accepted research I know
> about does say the opposite.
 >
All claims posted to this board will be met in kind.

What research?

Nick claimed 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.