Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/2/2026 2:42 PM, Creon wrote:
> At 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.
> 
> Excuse me, but what *idiot* told you _that_?
> 
> A warmer climate might mean drying some places, but also will
> increase water vapor for wetter winters in many places,
> causing more fuels to grow, only to dry out more later.
> 
> But I'm sure you already knew all that -- that's what I like about
> you: your attention to detail.
> 
So, Wilson and I already pointed this out but they cut our arguments out 
of the conversation. Keep in mind, you're not debating with honest 
informants here anymore. YMMV.

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%).

Those natural fires usually happen in remote, hard-to-reach forests.

Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning 
strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.

Thousands of natural lightning strikes triggered remote forest 
ignitions, particularly in western Canada and Ontario.

Campfires, equipment use, and accidental sparks and other human activity 
accounted for a significant portion of the initial flare-ups.