Re: Karma, and fires (was: Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires)

Creon <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 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.
> 
> That you apparently would do well to read.
> 
> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11811286/
> Abstract
> Rapid increases in wildfire area burned across North American forests
> pose novel challenges for managers and society. Increasing area burned
> raises questions about whether, and to what degree, contemporary fire
> regimes (1984–2022) are still departed from historical fire regimes (pre-1880).[. . .]
> 
> Since you seem to confuse the count of fires (quantitative) with
> the size of fires (qualitative), you are succumbing to a type II
> error.
> 
> BTW, the Tubbs Fire in 2017 -- for which we evacuated, and from which
> parts of Santa Rosa burned down -- could have been kept near Calistoga
> if it wasn't for the Santa Ana winds that turned it into a firestorm.
> The burn path was similar to the Hanly fire of 1964, and you would
> be correct to say not enough was done to prevent a recurrence.
> 
> BTW, there is a troll in another newsgroup that continues to
> say that he wishes California would burn.  This, because he
> disagrees with (and apparently envies) our politics, our
> economics, our technology...
> 
> When he, in Colorado, was finally threatened by a wildfire,
> I told him that a) I didn't want Colorado to burn, but that b)
> I hoped he would "die in a fire".
> 
> Since then, I've had the worst week of "bad karma" of my life.
> My wife and I apparently contracted Covid-19 on the way home
> from our cruise, which means we are missing a gathering today
> that I'd been looking forward to for a couple of months.  We
> might also miss seeing AC/DC on Wednesday.
> 
> But that's not the worst of it.
> 
> A couple of days ago, my favorite cat, Julie, died suddenly;
> whether by stroke, aneurysm, or cardiac issue we don't know.
> She just let out a moaning sound and collapsed.
> 
> It was probably something stress-related, since she had just
> interacted with Kazumi, one of our other cats -- she hissed
> at him to warn him to stay out of "her" room (my office).
> 
> Julie and I were very close.  She would perch on my shoulder
> and watch while I used the computer.  She was a "foster failure",
> where we had taken her off a friend's hands because the friend
> couldn't handle having another cat anymore.
> 
> Couldn't pet her when we first got her, as the previous
> environment was not very loving, I'm afraid...but over the
> years, she had learned to trust us, and I think she was
> the sweetest inky in Santa Rosa.
> 
> (She was with us when we evacuated for the Glass fire, a fire
> that I haven't even mentioned yet.)
> 

Every time I’ve brought another animal into my life I know that the
inevitable will come. I’m sorry you’ve lost your Julie and I hope your
karma has run its course. For now anyway because it’s always a for now.