Fear-mongering over forest fires

[Michael Hardner]

Some people were ruminating about forest fires and climate change. I wasn't sure if there was a consensus yet, it seems like there mostly is. It's not like the entire country will be consumed though. And there are mitigating factors. 

https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjfr-2019-0094#:~:text=The majority of studies examining,decreased or unchanged fire activity.

 

The majority of studies examining area burned by wildfire suggest an overall increase with climate change; however, changes in burned area will be heterogeneous as some regions are also projected to experience decreased or unchanged fire activity. Importantly, climate is not the only factor influencing area burned, as fire management, topography, insect outbreaks, and fuel characteristics, among others, can also play a role. Nonetheless, projections of area burned based on weather – fire danger relationships suggest a 75%–120% increase in area burned in Canada by the end of this century based on Canadian and Hadley Centre climate models, respectively

[Akalupenn]

Totally get where you’re coming from. I’ve noticed the same thing with the media – they really know how to make everything seem way more catastrophic than it might be. I remember a few years back when wildfires were dominating the headlines, and everyone was freaking out. But honestly, from what I've seen, El Niño and other factors can have a big impact on fire seasons. It’s frustrating when the media makes it all about climate change to drive their point, especially when there’s a lot more nuance to the situation. And yeah, it seems like some politicians just jump on that fear to push their own agendas.

[herbie]

Worse if they don't mention climate change to appease those with memories so short they don't remember how thing right in front of their eyes have changed over decades and suggest instead that other 'nuances' are to blame.

Like the weeks of -40s that were every year in both childhood and 200+ years of records are maybe now 1 day a year if that outside the seniors home. How there's heat domes instead of long hot summers with rainstorms in the afternoons.
Regardless, WTF do you want to DO about cities burning other than blame something?

[SpankyMcFarland]

Another summer spent watching the fire forecasts in Newfoundland. Newfoundland! That cold, foggy, soggy little isle in the Atlantic. And our soggiest spot was one of the worst for fires this year, the Avalon peninsula itself. We were lucky not to see St. John’s go up. Alarm is appropriate, folks. Fear should be mongered on a mass scale. 

Edited October 9, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

34 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Another summer spent watching the fire forecasts in Newfoundland. Newfoundland! That cold, foggy, soggy little isle in the Atlantic. And our soggiest spot was one of the worst for fires this year, the Avalon peninsula itself. We were lucky not to see St. John’s go up. Alarm is appropriate, folks. Fear should be mongered on a mass scale. 

So move

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 7/25/2024 at 3:52 PM, Akalupenn said:

Totally get where you’re coming from. I’ve noticed the same thing with the media – they really know how to make everything seem way more catastrophic than it might be. I remember a few years back when wildfires were dominating the headlines, and everyone was freaking out. But honestly, from what I've seen, El Niño and other factors can have a big impact on fire seasons. It’s frustrating when the media makes it all about climate change to drive their point, especially when there’s a lot more nuance to the situation. And yeah, it seems like some politicians just jump on that fear to push their own agendas.

Yes, the media are in the business of hyping stories but in this instance they are correct. The climatic changes I’ve seen in Newfoundland in my time here are genuinely frightening and are backed by the data. I have every reason not to want to see this but the evidence is overwhelming. 

Edited October 10, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Yes, the media are in the business of hyping stories but in this instance they are correct. The climatic changes I’ve seen in Newfoundland in my time here are genuinely frightening and are backed by the data. I have every reason not to want to see this but the evidence is overwhelming. 

So adapt.

The climate has been changing throughout mankind's history. The climate change in the 1300s and basically our entire existence changed on the planet for the next hundred years.

But the idea that somehow it's a crisis this time or that we can stop it or that we'll all die if we don't simply is not in any evidence I have seen and I have begged climate proponents for such information a million times. They can't point to the science all they do is point to a website that repeats their talking points without explaining where that information came from other than the most general terms. And that's useless

We spent 10 years pay your carbon tax that was supposed to fight climate change and was our very best tool according to most of the climate people and the government. It achieved absolutely nothing and we still have climate change

You should focus on adaptation not crying wolf for the third time

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So adapt.

The climate has been changing throughout mankind's history. The climate change in the 1300s and basically our entire existence changed on the planet for the next hundred years.

But the idea that somehow it's a crisis this time or that we can stop it or that we'll all die if we don't simply is not in any evidence I have seen and I have begged climate proponents for such information a million times. They can't point to the science all they do is point to a website that repeats their talking points without explaining where that information came from other than the most general terms. And that's useless

We spent 10 years pay your carbon tax that was supposed to fight climate change and was our very best tool according to most of the climate people and the government. It achieved absolutely nothing and we still have climate change

You should focus on adaptation not crying wolf for the third time

OK. I constantly ask our political representatives about what they are doing to reduce the risk of wildfire and I’m always on the lookout for ways to make my own home less flammable too. So I am already focused on adaptation but there are unfortunately too many Canadians who seek to either deny climate change completely or dispute its magnitude. In no way am I crying wolf. Many of us on the island were in fear of losing our homes this summer which is a new thing for a lot of us. 

Edited October 10, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

OK. I constantly ask our political representatives about what they are doing to reduce the risk of wildfire and I’m always on the lookout for ways to make my own home less flammable too. 

You ask them?

Why are you and anyone else in your area voting for anyone that doesn't have a solid plan? Why would you just ask them at some point? Why aren't you demanding? The left was VERY demanding about a carbon tax,  why aren't you DEMANDING a plan to adapt? Strong increases in forest management and firefighting capacity, creation of firebreaks etc. Full time standing wildfire force prepped equipped and ready to go?

you ASK?  You basically just told me you're not remotely serious about this. 

9 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

So I am already focused on adaptation but there are unfortunately too many Canadians who seek to either deny climate change completely or dispute its magnitude.

Nobody denies climate change happens. What they deny is that it's a crisis. And that's where you get into magnitude and that's something that your side of the aisle has not been able to provide any science on. I have asked on this board at least 30 times when the subject comes up for whoever's bringing it up to provide me with scientific research that says a climate change is enough of a threat to be a crisis and b) that there's anything measurable and specific that could actually reduce climate change substantially. 

I have never ever gotten a single example. Others here are the same.

So please don't tell me people don't "understand the mangitude".  If you won't provide actual data then why should anyone believe you?

16 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

In no way am I crying wolf.

You are 100 percent crying wolf. 

If you were SERIOUS about it you'd have screamed for adaptation already because you would know nothing we do today will make any change in the short term climate wise. And you would have never supported a carbon tax as a way to fight climate change, you would have demanded a real plan and real targets that were really hit and would have demanded to know what the effect of those targets would be. 

How on EARTH can you POSSIBLY expect anyone to take you seriously or not consider you the chicken little of the day?  You had TEN YEARS of having free license to do whatever you wanted to fight climate change and what did you settle for? A tax that lined the pockets of the gov't and did nothing, while doing nothing for mitigation. 

Yeah. We can tell you're REAAAAAAAAAALLY concerned.  

[herbie]

We used to pack firecrackers and home made road flares whenever we went camping on the coast. Never gave a thought to forest fires, MOF the girls would all end up partying in our tent cuz we were nerdy Scouts and always had the only place that wasn't a sodden mess of mud.
Went many times to the "Sunshine Coast" and saw maybe two days of sun over a bloody decade. Did many miserable wet hikes where there was snow on the ground still in late July, and many trips to Tofino that ended up as storm watching rather than whale watching.
Our parents told us that was normal, get used to it. Dad told us how miserable it was working on the docks and building a log cabin on Mt Seymour in the 1940s.

It ain't like that anymore. Even worse in the North. Look at the huge swaths they've cleared along the highways, and even those aren't wide enough these days. Major changes will be coming to forest practices and they'll take decades to implement and see results. BC's more than double the size of California and 1/10th the population with half in one tiny corner.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

We used to pack firecrackers and home made road flares whenever we went camping on the coast. Never gave a thought to forest fires, MOF the girls would all end up partying in our tent cuz we were nerdy Scouts and always had the only place that wasn't a sodden mess of mud.
Went many times to the "Sunshine Coast" and saw maybe two days of sun over a bloody decade. Did many miserable wet hikes where there was snow on the ground still in late July, and many trips to Tofino that ended up as storm watching rather than whale watching.
Our parents told us that was normal, get used to it. Dad told us how miserable it was working on the docks and building a log cabin on Mt Seymour in the 1940s.

It ain't like that anymore. Even worse in the North. Look at the huge swaths they've cleared along the highways, and even those aren't wide enough these days. Major changes will be coming to forest practices and they'll take decades to implement and see results. BC's more than double the size of California and 1/10th the population with half in one tiny corner.

Absolutely lie 

I've been practically living in the woods since the seventies with buddies and partying and all of that stuff and even back in the 70s kids knew that you didn't get careless with fire. That it was easy to start a forest fire if you were irresponsible. I'll even in America they had smokey the bear doing public service announcements regularly Since the 1950s because this is a problem

If you were behaving the way you claimed you were behaving you were a complete and utter unmitigated ass who deserved to have the shit beat out of him and so were your friends. It was never safe to behave like that in the woods and that's absolutely as true in the past as it is today.

You're a complete twat and a tard. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 10/10/2025 at 4:54 PM, CdnFox said:

Nobody denies climate change happens. What they deny is that it's a crisis. And that's where you get into magnitude and that's something that your side of the aisle has not been able to provide any science on. I have asked on this board at least 30 times when the subject comes up for whoever's bringing it up to provide me with scientific research that says a climate change is enough of a threat to be a crisis and b) that there's anything measurable and specific that could actually reduce climate change substantially.

 

Climate change happens and part of that now is man-made climate change. Man-made climate change is a crisis. No reasonable person denies that any more. Anybody who does needs to educate themselves on the scientific evidence. 

 

Edited October 13, 2025 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

12 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

 

Climate change happens and part of that now is man-made climate change.

 

That has the ring of truth about it, and i'll not dispute it.  

The problem is all good lies start with a truth. 

12 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Man-made climate change is a crisis

And  here we go. 

Why. Where's the science that shows specifically it's a crisis, and of course where's the evidence that anything we're doing or proposing or COULD do will make any substantial difference?

Climate change is not in and of itself for crisis. There has never been a day in our history of the entire world where climate wasn't looking to change. Sometimes the change happens quickly and sometimes it takes longer but it always changes.

So why is it a crisis? Why isn't it something that we just have to acknowledge and adapt to? I have seen nothing and not one person who has been asked on this board in the last 2 years has ever put forward even a single scientific document that demonstrates it's a crisis.

You can't just declare it a crisis because 'muh feels". 

12 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

No reasonable person denies that any more.

Tonnes of reasonable persons deny it's a crisis, Including a lot of scientists who then get muzzled.  

Quote

Anybody who does needs to educate themselves on the scientific evidence. 

REALLY!!!!        Well here's your big chance!!!!  Many on this board have been begging for YEARS to see the science!!  

Not a webpage that says It's seen the science. not some news guy who says the science is out there trust me, etc etc.  I'm saying this is your golden opportunity to prove that it's a crisis by posting the science that prove's it's an actual crisis!!!!

Go ahead, i'd love to actually read what the crisis is   Lets see your evidence that it's not something we can adapt to, or that anything we can do will substantially impact it at this point.  You will be the first in hundreds and hundreds of asks. 

 

 

[herbie]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Absolutely lie 

Once again, the immediate response of a mor0n that can't see outside his basement window.
Two cents says you've never even been to BC's coast, you certainly never went camping there. Why do you think we call it the Wet Coast instead of West?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Once again, the immediate response of a mor0n that can't see outside his basement window.

no, it was my reply TO that guy  

 

Quote

Two cents says you've never even been to BC's coast, you certainly never went camping there. Why do you think we call it the Wet Coast instead of West?

Camped and boated and hunted over almost all of it.  A few corners i never went to but those are in the minority.  You probably went to alice lake once and consider yourself an expert   LOLOLOL   Been in every cove and inlet up to the tip of the island, we'd spend weeks on the water each year and weeks camping and hunting either with family or friends  

And you are 100 percent a liar.  Even back in the 70's there was serious concerns about forest fires started by people going in to the woods.  Till the mid 70's there were 'prevent forest fire' commercials and messages everywhere in bc.  And even after that they tried to focus on managing forests more but forest fire prevention was a big deal 

You are absolutely lying through your teeth and i doubt you spent a day in the woods when you claim there was no concern or risk of forest fires from people in those days.  It's just a straight up lie. Man made forest fires were plentiful  and a big concern. 

 

• Total fires: In 1970, British Columbia experienced a total of 8,864 forest fires. 
   
• Human-caused fires: The exact number of human-caused fires is not available, but a 10-year average suggests around 40% of fires are human-caused. "'

So about 3500 man made forest fires in one year alone in a place you say can't catch on fire.

That would be from twats like you who knew nothing of the woods and how to camp safely and did stupid stuff.  What a twat. 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Has anybody used FireSmart guidelines to retrofit their home? This guy points to some things in there that he’s not going to do. I had to laugh - he sounds as South African at the end as his name suggests! Don’t know if he is. 

 

Quote

When Francois Rossouw saw that the summer of 2023 was shaping up to be a dry season in the Northwest Territories, he took steps to protect his home.

Rossouw lives off-grid in the boreal forest, about 30 kilometres outside Yellowknife. Having previously worked in forestry and wildfire logistics, he was no stranger to FireSmart — a program that offers recommendations on how to reduce wildfire risk to homes and communities.

That spring, Rossouw cleared dead wood from around his house. Although it’s not a key part of the FireSmart guidelines, he set up a sprinkler system on his property. He also installed a fire-resistant metal roof, which was only completed about a week before a wildfire raged toward his home, triggering a three-week evacuation.

Quote

The fire ultimately came within about 15 kilometres of Rossouw’s property. Even now, though, he doesn’t want to get rid of the spruce trees that envelop his home. FireSmart recommends removing combustible material within 1.5 metres of a building and removing or replacing flammable vegetation within 10 metres. But Rossouw worries that eliminating vegetation would dry out the ground, making it more prone to burn. His home is also sandwiched between a lake and a highway, so he depends on the forest for privacy in some spots.

“If I was to FireSmart to their measurements, I would have no trees on my property,” he said. “Well, what’s the point of living here?”

https://thenarwhal.ca/firesmart-homes-canada-wildfires/

https://firesmartcanada.ca

Edited January 24 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

Just clarified - he is South African. 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Has anybody used FireSmart guidelines to retrofit their home? This guy points to some things in there that he’s not going to do. I had to laugh - he sounds as South African at the end as his name suggests! Don’t know if he is. 

 

https://thenarwhal.ca/firesmart-homes-canada-wildfires/

https://firesmartcanada.ca

World's full of special people, but honestly that's the first time i've heard of being afraid to remove  a tree because it may make the GROUND easier to burn. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

This winter Newfoundland has had heavy snow and few thaws which should help reduce the risk of wildfires early in the summer but how the rest of the fire season goes will depend on the balance of rain and temperature. 

Quote

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/nl-weather-risk-9.7159179

 

 

Edited April 17 by SpankyMcFarland