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

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

P.S. don’t forget about the Rainbow Bridge. :)