Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/2/2026 5:42 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.
> 

I think you're 100% right. The "consensus" however seems to be it's 
going to get warmer and in many places dryer.