Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/9/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 8/9/26 3:47 PM, Dude wrote:
>> On 8/7/2026 9:24 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 8/7/26 2:28 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>> On 8/5/2026 9:01 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 8/5/26 7:30 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/4/2026 4:05 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 15:51:08 -0700, Dude <[email protected]> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2026 1:51 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/4/26 11:58 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2026 3:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/3/26 11:10 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2026 12:05 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/3/26 8:53 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/2/2026 3:30 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 15:19:59 -0400, Wilson 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The point being that current trends no longer seem to be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cyclical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They seem to be more and more year after year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're looking at your personal experience and media 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events over the past 20 years and thinking that can't be 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> greater cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> what _is_ even the cause of the "greater cycle" ya 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dingus??? lol
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The underlying question is, what drives the changes in 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth's climate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not CO2 alone.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that's not answering the question wilson. some *current* and 
>>>>>>>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>>>>> physical change needs to be driving the measurably increased 
>>>>>>>>>>> heat in
>>>>>>>>>>> earth's systems, that isn't just an unlikely coincidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> not only does it need to be a specific physical change, it 
>>>>>>>>>>> needs to
>>>>>>>>>>> align with _all_ recorded evidence from various energy fluxes 
>>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>>> measure, and it needs to be capable of causing a 1C _global_ 
>>>>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>>>>> in a matter of decades, which is rather instantaneously when 
>>>>>>>>>>> compared
>>>>>>>>>>> to normal geological periodic cycles
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We all know "the consensus" says it's all about CO2 from human 
>>>>>>>>>> emissions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wilson ur honestly just uneducated
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are well credentialed dissidents in the scientific 
>>>>>>>>>> community who
>>>>>>>>>> say that other factors are at play and I've already provided 
>>>>>>>>>> that data
>>>>>>>>>> to you, which you've dismissed out of hand (as has the IPCC). I
>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge that these are minority views.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They say:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Earth's climate has fluctuated dramatically without human 
>>>>>>>>>> influence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which does not contradict humans driving change
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, sediments) show the Roman Warm
>>>>>>>>>> Period and the Medieval Warm Period (~900–1300 AD) were at 
>>>>>>>>>> least as
>>>>>>>>>> warm or warmer than today in many regions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> how would you even know that if u don't accept temperature
>>>>>>>>> reconstruction wilson???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> see the fact ur just arbitrarily cherry picking when u do and 
>>>>>>>>> do not
>>>>>>>>> believe the evidence on the matter is not a sign of proper truth
>>>>>>>>> seeking, and is rather just confirmation seeking
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The current warming (~1.09°C since ~1880) is a natural 
>>>>>>>>>> recovery from
>>>>>>>>>> the Little Ice Age (~1300–1850 AD). Solar irradiance 
>>>>>>>>>> reconstructions
>>>>>>>>>> (by Soon et al., 2015 in Earth-Science Reviews) correlate ~70– 
>>>>>>>>>> 90% with
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> lol @ soon, the guy that took $1.2 million from the fossil fuel 
>>>>>>>>> industry
>>>>>>>>> and never disclosed it on his papers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and so? the fact past changes had different drivers does not 
>>>>>>>>> negative
>>>>>>>>> the driver for this one. we know solar radiance hasn't changed 
>>>>>>>>> and has
>>>>>>>>> rather decreased since the 50s wilson due to direct satellite 
>>>>>>>>> data. if
>>>>>>>>> this was solar driven warming we'd need isolation increase but 
>>>>>>>>> we don't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> temperature changes over centuries. The 20th-century warming 
>>>>>>>>>> aligns
>>>>>>>>>> with the end of the Little Ice Age. The current rate of 
>>>>>>>>>> increase is
>>>>>>>>>> high, but within paleo bounds (e.g., the Younger Dryas ended with
>>>>>>>>>> 10°C/century jumps).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> younger dryas was _not_ a global temperature change wilson, it 
>>>>>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>> shift in the heat distribution during to AMOC shifts
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The urban heat island effects inflate modern records. McKitrick &
>>>>>>>>>> Michaels, 2007 in Climate Research found ~50% of U.S. land 
>>>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>>>> artifactual.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> good thing we don't rely on urban temperatures alone to measure 
>>>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> US temperature records are adjusted homogenously (NOAA's "time of
>>>>>>>>>> observation bias" corrections).  These adjustments applied to
>>>>>>>>>> historical records in major datasets have increased the long-term
>>>>>>>>>> warming relative to the raw data by adding ~0.3°C artificial 
>>>>>>>>>> warming
>>>>>>>>>> post-1900, roughly doubling the century-scale mean temperature 
>>>>>>>>>> trend.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The CO2 greenhouse effect is not unlimited. CO2 absorbs infrared
>>>>>>>>>> radiation in specific bands, but these are already ~90% 
>>>>>>>>>> saturated at
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CO2 saturation was refuted in 50s and has is still rising
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> pre-industrial levels (e.g., lab spectra from HITRAN database).
>>>>>>>>>> Increasing CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm adds ~1–1.5°C direct effect 
>>>>>>>>>> with no
>>>>>>>>>> feedbacks. Satellite data (ERBE, CERES) show outgoing longwave
>>>>>>>>>> radiation is increasing with warming, indicating potential 
>>>>>>>>>> negative
>>>>>>>>>> feedbacks (cooling clouds/reflection).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> like duh wilson. temperature will increase until increase outgoing
>>>>>>>>> radiation balances out the heat trapping effect, that's basic
>>>>>>>>> thermodynamics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> furthermore we can measure using satellite data that the energy
>>>>>>>>> imbalance is increasing ... the difference between the amount of
>>>>>>>>> incoming energy vs the outgoing energy is positive and growing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are beneficial aspects to higher CO2: It boosts plant 
>>>>>>>>>> growth
>>>>>>>>>> (greening Earth via NASA MODIS showing over 14% increase in 
>>>>>>>>>> global
>>>>>>>>>> vegetation since 1980s) which also has a negative climatic 
>>>>>>>>>> feedback. And
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> which has leveled off because of other constraints like 
>>>>>>>>> nutrient flows
>>>>>>>>> (that we have radically altered due to wildlife obliteration 
>>>>>>>>> from human
>>>>>>>>> activity)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> warming reduces cold-related deaths (typically 10x more than 
>>>>>>>>>> heat-
>>>>>>>>>> related, per Lancet studies) and expands habitable zones.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it also increases heat related deaths and will shrink the 
>>>>>>>>> "habitable"
>>>>>>>>> zones in other areas
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The IPCC forecast relies on positive water vapor/cloud 
>>>>>>>>>> feedbacks to
>>>>>>>>>> nearly triple the direct CO2 warming, but predictions for the 
>>>>>>>>>> tropical
>>>>>>>>>> troposphere (a fingerprint of AGW) are far higher than actual 
>>>>>>>>>> balloon/
>>>>>>>>>> radar data. The model-to-observation ratio shows the models 
>>>>>>>>>> predict
>>>>>>>>>> warming roughly 1.5–2× higher than real observations. In fact 
>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>> model examined showed a warm bias in the tropospheric layers.
>>>>>>>>>> (McKitrick & Christy 2020, Earth and Space Science, “Pervasive 
>>>>>>>>>> Warming
>>>>>>>>>> Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers”). Other studies of surface
>>>>>>>>>> temperature or different periods/layers find that a majority 
>>>>>>>>>> of CMIP
>>>>>>>>>> models tend to warm faster than observations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is no observed upward trend in hurricanes, droughts, or 
>>>>>>>>>> floods
>>>>>>>>>> when normalized for population/economics (e.g., Pielke Jr.'s 
>>>>>>>>>> data;
>>>>>>>>>> IPCC SREX report admits low confidence in human attribution 
>>>>>>>>>> for most
>>>>>>>>>> extremes).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> old report (2012) that was based on economic impact in the US, not
>>>>>>>>> physical measures. since then studies establishing high 
>>>>>>>>> confidence in
>>>>>>>>> increase have been done.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> never mind all the things like insurance increases, govt 
>>>>>>>>> preparation
>>>>>>>>> done around the world, sea level rise, etc, etc
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The "consensus" is manufactured: John Cook's study that 
>>>>>>>>>> claimed 97% of
>>>>>>>>>> scientists agreed with AGW forecasts coded the abstracts 
>>>>>>>>>> ambiguously,
>>>>>>>>>> excluding ~66% of papers. Actual endorsement of catastrophic 
>>>>>>>>>> AGW is
>>>>>>>>>> ~1– 10% among specialists (e.g., surveys by Bray & von Storch).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the consensus isn't that catastrophic warming has been locked in,
>>>>>>>>> consensus is that warming will stop immediately once zero 
>>>>>>>>> emissions has
>>>>>>>>> been reached
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Funding biases (gov't grants favor alarm) and peer-review echo
>>>>>>>>>> chambers suppress dissent (e.g., "Climategate" emails revealed 
>>>>>>>>>> data
>>>>>>>>>> manipulation).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> not a single one of the more than 8 independent investigations of
>>>>>>>>> climategate came back with evidence of intentional misconduct 
>>>>>>>>> or data
>>>>>>>>> manipulation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Correlation does not equal causation; in ice cores the CO2 
>>>>>>>>>> increase
>>>>>>>>>> lags temperature by ~800 years (potentially caused by natural
>>>>>>>>>> outgassing).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yes. CO2 does not normally trigger warming changes. it usually 
>>>>>>>>> functions
>>>>>>>>> as a feedback mechanism. that does not refute it's current 
>>>>>>>>> impact or
>>>>>>>>> ability to drive climate change when no other trigger exists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In summary, anthropogenic climate change is overstated: 
>>>>>>>>>> natural forces
>>>>>>>>>> drive most changes, CO2's impact is smaller than stated, and 
>>>>>>>>>> alarmism
>>>>>>>>>> stems from biased models/data.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> maybe if ur an idiot seeking confirmation bias rather than truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You snipped this out:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you repeated it.  So you must want to see it ignored again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That should be a wrap you snipped my reply again. Truth to the 
>>>>>> power of snip.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning 
>>>>>> strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
>>>>>
>>>>> to repeat again: >90% of the total acreage burned in canada stemmed 
>>>>> from lightning ignition. humans accounts for a very small minority 
>>>>> of the total acreage burned.
>>>>>
>>>> You snipped and then posted my post. Good work!
>>>>
>>>> That should be a wrap!
>>>>
>>>> Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of natural lightning 
>>>> strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
>>>
>>> the overwhelming majority of the acreage burned was done by lightning 
>>> ignited fires. and droughts aren't "seasonal". climate change caused 
>>> temperature increases is pulling moisture out of the ecology, making 
>>> everything more flammable
>>>
>> Don't forget human activity. Roughly 84% to 90% of all wildfires in 
>> the United States are caused by humans. Just saying.
> 
> that's right u dumb boomer cunt: keep ignoring the fact that 55% of the 
> acreage actually burned is by lightning ignited fires. we could end all 
> human ignition and still be left with 55% of the problem, that would 
> still be growing
> 
> it is incredibly how ungodly stupid ur average dud is
>
So, let me say this, it is very difficult for any individual to control 
lightening strikes that ignite forest wildfires.

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

There have always been droughts - it's seasonal.
 >
 >

>>>>>>
>>>>>>  >>> Campfires, equipment use, and accidental sparks and other 
>>>>>> human activity
>>>>>>>> accounted for a significant portion of the initial flare-ups.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> again wilson: none of this has answered the question of where 
>>>>>>>>> the extra
>>>>>>>>> heat is coming from. you can throw all the climate change denier
>>>>>>>>> arguments at me endlessly, but until you explain definitely all 
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> extra heat we can directly measure on our planet ... ur just 
>>>>>>>>> seeking
>>>>>>>>> confirmation dud
>>>>>>>>>