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

Creon <[email protected]> wrote:
> At Sun, 2 Aug 2026 23:00:44 -0000 (UTC), Tara <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> 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. :)
> 
> If there is a "God", then there has to be a Rainbow Bridge. :)

Stands to reason, doesn’t it. :)


> 
> I would say more about that, but it has gotten very dusty
> in this room all of a sudden...
> 
> Okay, I guess I can't leave it with that.  I'll just point
> out that Heraclitus was writing of a "Logos" 500 BCE...and
> no, it wasn't the one from John 1:1.

Heraclitus logos is the underlying reality. John’s logos became a divine
man. 

> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus
> 
> I take it to mean "divine order" (which many scholars think
> Heraclitus probably meant).  To me, that means the "Laws of Nature".

Sure looks like it 


> If consciousness is an inherent property of the Cosmos,
> it gives me comfort to know that she is will all of us now.

:)


> 
> (Dang that dust!)
>