Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/2/2026 1:04 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
> 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.
>>
>> 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."
> 
> What I do say is that when research like this comes out sunding very
> much like what himbo wants me to believe (it is all a hoax).  I am
> immediately very suspicious.  Not simply because it is him that says
> such things, but because I am very aware of his record of lies and
> deceptions.
 >
You're cutting out again.

Only you can prevent forest fires.

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.