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

On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 13:25:05 -0000 (UTC), Tara <[email protected]> wrote:

>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. :)

One could be forgiven for assuming.

>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.

Will of all of us...kinda schizophrenic then.

>:)
>
>
>> 
>> (Dang that dust!)
>> 
>
>
-- 
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away