Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/2/2026 2:06 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 8/2/26 12:19 PM, Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/2/2026 1:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 8/2/26 9:31 AM, 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
>>>
>>> (it's worth noting that's only 2 studies, 2 links each)
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> *sigh*, noah the research isn't crappy, what's crappy is wilson's 
>>> conclusions from it.
>>>
>>> a) the research is largely generalized across the continental us, 
>>> which does not even have boreal forests, so off to great start there
>>>
>>> b) it's not climate change that lead to the wildfire deficit, it's 
>>> human activity as noted in _both_ studies. being a complex system ofc 
>>> several factors can affect wildfire rates, and human activity 
>>> obviously does. human activity has caused a deficit. which is getting 
>>> "corrected" by the increased risk from what is still largely nominal 
>>> climate change across most american forests. this risk is still 
>>> increasing and we've only gotten started
>>>
>>> c) the study that does include some of canadian boreal region, 
>>> records it as the only region burning at a higher rather than 
>>> historical trends, 159% in fact. probably cause it's largely 
>>> wilderness and far less subject to the impact of human activity 
>>> suppressing fire
>>>
>>> d) one of the studies literally admits extent is largely not the 
>>> problem for most american forests, but severity is:
>>>
>>> | Although contemporary fire extent is not unprecedented across many
>>> | North American forests, there is abundant evidence that unprecedented
>>> | contemporary fire severity is driving forest loss in many ecosystems
>>>
>>> it's honestly quite eye opening to see just how poor wilson's ability 
>>> in utilizing evidence is
>>
>> The point is and remains, the wildfires over most of North America are 
>> cyclical and overall have not increased in recent years compared to 
>> the long term history.
> 
> the point remains that ur trying to cherry pick parts of the narrative 
> you like while ignoring parts of the narrative you don't like
> 
>>
>> Here's one that focused on the boreal forests:
>>
>> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL043706
>>
>> "We present here a 7000-year wildfire reconstruction based on 
>> sedimentary charcoal series from five lakes located south of Hudson 
>> Bay in eastern boreal North America. The reconstruction shows a 
>> significant downward trend in the frequency of large fires from 0.0061 
>> fire/yr 5000 cal yr BP [5000 calendar years before present] to 0.0033 
>> fire/yr at present. Simulations of fire-season climate based on UK 
>> Universities Global Atmospheric Modelling Programme output and 
>> reconstructions based on proxy data both indicate a shift toward 
>> increasing available moisture in the region between the mid-Holocene 
>> and today. We infer that the diminishing trend in wildfire activity 
>> was ultimately caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in 
>> summer insolation. Future higher temperatures not compensated for by 
>> significant precipitation increases will bring fire frequency back 
>> toward its upper limit, recorded between 6000 and 2000 cal yr BP."
>>
> 
> did u actually read that abstract??? literally the last fucking sentence:
> 
>   | Future higher temperatures not compensated for by significant
>   | precipitation increases will bring fire frequency back toward
>   | its upper limit, recorded between 6000 and 2000 cal yr BP
> 
> ei: current climate change trends will drive the amount of wildfires up
> 
> so yes wilson: the fire were trending slightly downwards across 
> millennia as the holocene is generally characterized by an overall 
> slight trend in downward global temps until the 20th century ... hence 
> when we had disrupted that trend with green house gas pollution and now 
> fires are going up
> 
> i honestly don't expect u to ever pull ur head out of ur asshole wilson, 
> but it is kinda pathetic posting proof that supports my position without 
> realizing it, eh?
> 
You're cutting out again.

Apparently, human activity causes about 50% (roughly 46% to 54%) of all 
wildfires in Canada.

However, while humans start about half of the individual fires, 
lightning ignites the vast majority (roughly 81% to 85%).