Canada Wildfires due to bad forest management, not climate change

nypost.com...

By Wednesday we were registering the worse air pollution of any major city in the world and COVID mask maniacs were back in their element.

But don’t fall for the propaganda that climate change is to blame.

The situation in Canada is similar to that in Australia, where green ideology and chronic government underfunding mean that the forests currently ablaze have not been managed properly for years.

Instead of dead wood and undergrowth being removed regularly using low-intensity controlled or “prescribed” burns, forests have become overgrown tinderboxes. Fire trails that used to allow first responders easy access to the forest have closed over as vast tracts of land are locked away from humans. Logging and other commercial practices that used to self-interestedly tend to forest health have been phased (out). *out wasn't printed in the article, I added it as I think it was supposed to be there.*

So if you just took the word of the MSM, you would be sure that the current fire is a direct result of Climate Change. the only problem is, those who know have been warning about this for quite some time. Anecdotally, I live right next to what used to be Ft. Bragg, and the forest is vast and full of pines. They use prescribed burns in different areas to maintain a healthy forest, and prevent wild fires. But don't take my word for it, I'm not an expert.

Back in 2016 when Parks Canada had planned just 12 prescribed burns for the year, Mark Heathcott, the agency’s retired fire management coordinator of 23 years, warned about the importance of the practice to prevent future wildfires.

This all has to do with burning off the dead stuff that falls to the forest floor, and allowing the charred remains to promote growth of ground cover plants like Ferns and grasses. My grandson was listening to this yesterday and must have had someone at school tell him the lie of climate change causing these fires. I took him to Ft Bragg and showed him an area that had been burned last year so he could see the new growth and understand what all this is about. It's a crime that so many lies exist around this. If there was any truth to the topic, it is lost in all the lies. Again, I'm not an expert, so my opinion is worthless, but I do believe Earth has cyclical events that dictate the weather on a large scale. It helps to explain how vast deserts used to be rainforests, and vice versa. We can see lost cities under the ocean and know they used to be above ground.

So in the end, you should listen to whomever you trust on this topic. But know that facts will exist that cannot be brushed aside, and some of them do discredit the narrative that everything negative happening climate wise, is due to man's influence. A happy medium might be where we all come together in understanding that our pollution does have a direct impact on the world we live in, and should be stopped, or changed to limit our footprint. I don't know anyone who would fight to save the ability to pollute, unless they made money by doing so.

I don't think so.
Nature has always provided spaces in the land for forest.

The dry climate conditions lay the groundwork, people and weather are the catalysts, and firefighting needs all hands on deck, so to speak. There are not enough hands on deck. Also it was stated that half the fires were caused by camp fires. It should be a reasonable request of campers to be extra vigilant or forego fires altogether when conditions are that dry.

originally posted by: quintessentone
The dry climate conditions lay the groundwork, people and weather are the catalysts, and firefighting needs all hands on deck, so to speak. There are not enough hands on deck. Also it was stated that half the fires were caused by camp fires. It should be a reasonable request of campers to be extra vigilant or forego fires altogether when conditions are that dry.

when the forest management has been ignored this long, and the warnings have been out for years, yea, limiting things that can cause fires would be a great idea. But then, managing the forest would be a much smarter idea. Then you don't have to worry about when the big one happens, you did the work to prevent it.

after you take the last drink out of the bottle, being drunk is part of the deal, it's not optional.

Wildfires have NOT grown more severe over the past century. They've actually grown a lot less destructive.

Just wait, hurricane season will be here soon and we'll be hearing the false claims about how climate change has made hurricanes stronger and more frequent, neither of which is actually supported by any data.

a reply to: network dude

Even if there was absolutely no human activity in those areas large scale forests fires will happen one day.
As stated above, the dryer than nornal conditions have laid the groundwork, the humans just made it worse by intentionally starting fires, but at the same time yes, if we are going into those areas to work or leisure we need to maintain those areas.

The debate is whether climate change caused the conditions. I believe it's a big contributing factor. ultimately human activity - or lack there of pro action - caused most of this mess. The main issue with how this is being portrayed to the masses is that climate change is the main culprit.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

Even if there was absolutely no human activity in those areas large scale forests fires will happen one day.
As stated above, the dryer than nornal conditions have laid the groundwork, the humans just made it worse by intentionally starting fires, but at the same time yes, if we are going into those areas to work or leisure we need to maintain those areas.

The debate is whether climate change caused the conditions. I believe it's a big contributing factor. ultimately human activity - or lack there of pro action - caused most of this mess. The main issue with how this is being portrayed to the masses is that climate change is the main culprit.

I don't see it being portrayed that way, rather, in my neck of the woods, there are many contributing factors...dry conditions from climate change (warming of the planet) is just one of the conditions. If you want to deny the planet is warming due to human activity, then do so, but we can't deny that the planet is warming.

www.climate.gov...#:~:text=Earth's%20temperature%20has%20risen%20by,0.18%C2 %B0%20C)%20per%20decade.

So the argument is still what is the cause of the warming of the planet?

a reply to: quintessentone

Not many people deny that the world's climate is changing.

And here's the kicker, even if humans were 100% not the cause we as humans need to "fight" the changing climate by learning to change with it or be the responsible stewards of the environments we live in or near and that involves maintaining forests so they don't burn out of control.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: quintessentone

Not many people deny that the world's climate is changing.

And here's the kicker, even if humans were 100% not the cause we as humans need to "fight" the changing climate by learning to change with it or be the responsible stewards of the environments we live in or near and that involves maintaining forests so they don't burn out of control.

Exactly, so let's stop arguing who or what is to blame and start working together for the benefit of all mankind. What am I drunk?

originally posted by: network dude
nypost.com...

By Wednesday we were registering the worse air pollution of any major city in the world and COVID mask maniacs were back in their element.

But don’t fall for the propaganda that climate change is to blame.

The situation in Canada is similar to that in Australia, where green ideology and chronic government underfunding mean that the forests currently ablaze have not been managed properly for years.

Instead of dead wood and undergrowth being removed regularly using low-intensity controlled or “prescribed” burns, forests have become overgrown tinderboxes. Fire trails that used to allow first responders easy access to the forest have closed over as vast tracts of land are locked away from humans. Logging and other commercial practices that used to self-interestedly tend to forest health have been phased (out). *out wasn't printed in the article, I added it as I think it was supposed to be there.*

So if you just took the word of the MSM, you would be sure that the current fire is a direct result of Climate Change. the only problem is, those who know have been warning about this for quite some time. Anecdotally, I live right next to what used to be Ft. Bragg, and the forest is vast and full of pines. They use prescribed burns in different areas to maintain a healthy forest, and prevent wild fires. But don't take my word for it, I'm not an expert.

Back in 2016 when Parks Canada had planned just 12 prescribed burns for the year, Mark Heathcott, the agency’s retired fire management coordinator of 23 years, warned about the importance of the practice to prevent future wildfires.

This all has to do with burning off the dead stuff that falls to the forest floor, and allowing the charred remains to promote growth of ground cover plants like Ferns and grasses. My grandson was listening to this yesterday and must have had someone at school tell him the lie of climate change causing these fires. I took him to Ft Bragg and showed him an area that had been burned last year so he could see the new growth and understand what all this is about. It's a crime that so many lies exist around this. If there was any truth to the topic, it is lost in all the lies. Again, I'm not an expert, so my opinion is worthless, but I do believe Earth has cyclical events that dictate the weather on a large scale. It helps to explain how vast deserts used to be rainforests, and vice versa. We can see lost cities under the ocean and know they used to be above ground.

So in the end, you should listen to whomever you trust on this topic. But know that facts will exist that cannot be brushed aside, and some of them do discredit the narrative that everything negative happening climate wise, is due to man's influence. A happy medium might be where we all come together in understanding that our pollution does have a direct impact on the world we live in, and should be stopped, or changed to limit our footprint. I don't know anyone who would fight to save the ability to pollute, unless they made money by doing so.

On this one I have to disagree. I have seen the satellite footage of the fires all starting simultaneously and it was caused by a D.E.W no doubt about it. (for the uninformed a D.E.W is a Direct Energy Weapon) I have been saying this for months. All the Earthquakes California wild fires etc. The guy who has been calling all the earthquakes days before they happen that the national weather services along with regional governments have been ignoring (bc of the depopulation agenda) is on youtube and he shows the moment Canada went up.

This smells as fishy as Covid period. Not to mention Trudeau is a lizard. I said it bc I believe it and I stand in my truths.

originally posted by: face23785

Wildfires have NOT grown more severe over the past century. They've actually grown a lot less destructive.

Just wait, hurricane season will be here soon and we'll be hearing the false claims about how climate change has made hurricanes stronger and more frequent, neither of which is actually supported by any data.

To follow up on this, often what the media will do is dishonestly present statistics about the rising costs of wildfires or hurricanes as evidence that they are getting worse due to climate change.

The fact is that is not proof of in any sense of the word. Yes, costs have gone up, because populations keep growing, more people are living in vulnerable areas, and home values keep going up. That is why the cost of natural disasters are growing, not because they are becoming more frequent or more severe.

The overall trend in hurricane frequency is actually slightly down. But climate alarmists will dishonestly show just the portion of the graph that shows an increase.

If there's so much evidence, why do they constantly have to lie?

a reply to: network dude

" bad forest management "

Yeah , Not Apprehending Arsonists.........

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

Even if there was absolutely no human activity in those areas large scale forests fires will happen one day.
As stated above, the dryer than nornal conditions have laid the groundwork, the humans just made it worse by intentionally starting fires, but at the same time yes, if we are going into those areas to work or leisure we need to maintain those areas.

The debate is whether climate change caused the conditions. I believe it's a big contributing factor. ultimately human activity - or lack there of pro action - caused most of this mess. The main issue with how this is being portrayed to the masses is that climate change is the main culprit.

I get the trash and plastic argument somewhat, but the greenhouse gases come from natural non-human events significantly more than just the 220 years or so humans have been industrialized enough to even think about making a difference in our air and atmosphere.

So the earth never had dry periods or desertification of areas before humans?

www.oldest.org...

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

Even if there was absolutely no human activity in those areas large scale forests fires will happen one day.
As stated above, the dryer than nornal conditions have laid the groundwork, the humans just made it worse by intentionally starting fires, but at the same time yes, if we are going into those areas to work or leisure we need to maintain those areas.

The debate is whether climate change caused the conditions. I believe it's a big contributing factor. ultimately human activity - or lack there of pro action - caused most of this mess. The main issue with how this is being portrayed to the masses is that climate change is the main culprit.

if we did nothing, wildfires would still do this, they would ravage an area, and in a few years, that area would be thick with green new growth, just as the prescribed burns do. The problems arise where WE have built houses, and towns. It's a beautiful area, let's put a town here. then a fire comes and everyone is upset it burned down their house. Well, if you managed the forest, you could control that to a large degree.

a reply to: network dude

I was just having a conversation with a couple of local buddies, not yesterday but the day before. We had about a good 5 minute laugh hypothesizing that Trump will chime in and say that Canada is burning because they need to rake more leaves.

Remember when he said that stupid thing?

Well, it's still funny years later and utterly ridiculous to blame everything, the whole thing, on just maintenance.

It's dishonest, and also naive.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

Even if there was absolutely no human activity in those areas large scale forests fires will happen one day.
As stated above, the dryer than nornal conditions have laid the groundwork, the humans just made it worse by intentionally starting fires, but at the same time yes, if we are going into those areas to work or leisure we need to maintain those areas.

The debate is whether climate change caused the conditions. I believe it's a big contributing factor. ultimately human activity - or lack there of pro action - caused most of this mess. The main issue with how this is being portrayed to the masses is that climate change is the main culprit.

I get the the trash and plastic argument somewhat, but the greenhouse gases come from natural non human events significantly more than just the 220 years or so humans have been industrialized enough to even think about making a difference in our air and atmosphere.









So the earth never had dry periods or desertification of areas

Earth's temperature has risen by an average of 0.14° Fahrenheit (0.08° Celsius) per decade since 1880, or about 2° F in total. The rate of warming since 1981 is more than twice as fast: 0.32° F (0.18° C) per decade.

The amount of future warming Earth will experience depends on how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases we emit in coming decades. Today, our activities—burning fossil fuels and clearing forests—add about 11 billion metric tons of carbon (equivalent to a little over 40 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide) to the atmosphere each year. Because that is more carbon than natural processes can remove, atmospheric carbon dioxide increases each year.

According to the 2017 U.S. Climate Science Special Report, if yearly emissions continue to increase rapidly, as they have since 2000, models project that by the end of this century, global temperature will be at least 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the 1901-1960 average, and possibly as much as 10.2 degrees warmer. If annual emissions increase more slowly and begin to decline significantly by 2050, models project temperatures would still be at least 2.4 degrees warmer than the first half of the 20th century, and possibly up to 5.9 degrees warmer.

www.climate.gov...#:~:text=Earth's%20temperature%20has%20risen%20by,0.18%C2 %B0%20C)%20per%20decade

Where is the scientific evidence to refute this?

originally posted by: face23785

Wildfires have NOT grown more severe over the past century. They've actually grown a lot less destructive.

Just wait, hurricane season will be here soon and we'll be hearing the false claims about how climate change has made hurricanes stronger and more frequent, neither of which is actually supported by any data.

That curve shows that wildfire burned area had been increasing exponentially until about the early 1930s and then began decreasing exponentially until it reached a minimum around maybe 1985.

Would you care to guess when the US Forest Service started implementing aggressive fire suppression in the wild lands it administered? The early 1930s.

What we are seeing in that curve is the fact that fire suppression suddenly got a whole lot more effective around 1930. That happened for several reasons. First, because the federal government is responsible for most of the wild land in the West, there couldn't really be an effective program of wildfire suppression unless the federal government lead it. By 1935, the USFS had implemented a policy that all wild fires were to be suppressed by 10:00 AM on the morning following the day in which they were spotted. The other thing that made that possible by 1930 was the widespread adoption of motor vehicles and fire roads through the National Forests.

That worked very well (if fire suppression is the goal) until around 1985, when wild land burn area started slowly increasing. That is basically because the total amount of biomass in the temperate forests of North America has been increasing steadily since the end of WWII. Again, that is the product of two factors.

First, nobody cuts trees down for the fun of it. It's a difficult, dangerous job and there has to be an economic incentive, such as turning it into construction materials or paper, etc. The demand for construction materials basically follows the economy, so the number of trees harvested in any given time period reflects what the economy is doing. To harvest trees at a rate that's faster than what the economy demands would require very large expenditures of tax money, which nobody wants to do.

Second, CO2 is in fact a fertilizer--at least for some species of plants. Plants on land need 4 main elements to grow, sunlight, water, CO2, and arable land. At any given location on the planet one or more of those factors will be rate-limiting. In the Antarctic, for example, there is basically no liquid water (it's all frozen), there's very low sunlight (because it's a polar region), and there's no arable land (it's all ice). The CO2 concentration in the air over Antarctica is the same as it is everywhere on the globe, but increasing the CO2 concentration there does not produce any plant growth because CO2 is not the rate limiting factor there.

Now contrast that with the temperate areas of North America. Plenty of water (on the average), sunlight, and arable land. Because the CO2 concentration has risen by ≈ 25% since 1950, the forests have "greened". They are able to take advantage of the increase in CO2. The amount of biomass harvested from North American forests has not kept pace with the biomass production of the forests since about the end of WWII. That's why we're seeing a slow but steady rise in burned area in the wild lands. There's more stuff out there to burn.

a reply to: quintessentone

Your own source debunks your own statement about global warming.
2 degrees since the 1800's?
They can't even calibrate a thermometer across that time for a baseline.
lol
Dude, get real

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: quintessentone

Your own source debunks your own statement about global warming.
2 degrees since the 1800's?
They can't even calibrate a thermometer across that time for a baseline.
lol
Dude, get real

Take your debunking theory up with those scientists and get back to all of us with their comments. I am sure all of their contact information is readily available.

BBC News - Wildfires: UK to set up new Mediterranean-style specialist units
www.bbc.co.uk...

We are having more wildfires over here.

Even in London.

By the way, I think Climate Change is real, but not convinced we are to blame.