Re: The unspoken truth about wildfires

On 8/11/26 4:49 PM, Dude wrote:
> On 8/11/2026 1:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 8/11/26 12:31 PM, Dude wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> good job dud, the wildfire problem is one that individuals can control 
>> very much. only talking about what individuals can control will 
>> invariably miss what collectively we can do something about.
>>>
>>> Having said that, Canada's 2026 wildfires were started by a mix of 
>>> natural lightning strikes, human activity, and severe seasonal drought.
>>
>>  >90% of the canadian acreage burned was caused by lightning strikes, 
>> worsened by an increasing soil moisture deficient caused by rapidly 
>> increasing air temps. temps have risen between 1.5C to 3C since the 
>> preindustrial baseline for the boreal forest, quite a bit faster than 
>> the 1.2C to 1.4C global average.
>>
>> there is no reason to not expect these trends to continue
>>
> Maybe not if you don't change your ways and get on the program! YMMV.

as soon as there is actual program, i'm willing to change.

  > but there is no fucking program dud
  >
  > #god

> 
> Obviously, the Messiah will restore the planet when he comes back for 
> dinner. So no worries.  Relax. Have a cigar.
> 
>>>
>>> There have always been droughts - it's seasonal.
>>
>> droughts are by definition not seasonal u moron
>>
> Droughts occur every dry season since before time. That's why they call 
> them the "Dust Bowls".

that's _still_ not what a drought is. i mean you can keep using words 
wrong, i can't stop you.

  > but it will never convey coherent truth
  >
  > #god

> 
>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  >>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
> 


-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃