4 ms·

Isn’t the simple explanation the fact that non-human causes of wildfires are likely to start more than one in a given area? - Lightning? - Hot, dry winds + sp

by zamfi 3y ago

Isn’t the simple explanation the fact that non-human causes of wildfires are likely to start more than one in a given area? - Lightning? - Hot, dry winds + sparks from nearby power lines? (Debatably non-human, but usually not terrorists.) At least in California we have forest ecosystems that practically require periodic fire for regeneration — seeds that require fire to germinate — suggesting forest fires have been common even on evolutionary timescales, long predating humans.

pvaldes 3y ago
There is a even simpler explanation. Follow the patterns Starting multiple fire outbreaks (aiming to overpower the firefighters) is the standard procedure of every "professional" arsonist. Arsonists also do fire "tours". They drive, lights off, a secondary road without traffic and stop each few minutes to start outbreaks. This would easily mimick a chain of fire sparks starting from power lines in the road, but we know better because night-vision drones of the Spanish police videotaped some people red-handed doing exactly this. And this idiots had a surprise waiting at the end of the road. The problem is that most [1] of this people just are sent and paid for doing the job. When caught they fake mental issues and claim to act alone, but then you see that every single one of they follow exactly the same procedures, and know all the tricks to maximize the effect. [1] Arsonists searching revenge is the other category. They are strongly focused on smaller areas owned by the target
- zamfi 3y ago
  I'm not saying it's impossible that arsonists are starting some of these fires, and sure, some may be started in this way. I'm just saying that "lightning" is a simpler explanation than "well-coordinated major conspiracy of terrorists that succeeds at keeping things under wraps"---and so when, in California, a bunch of fires are started in a bunch of places where lightning struck dry timber in a fire-reliant ecosystem, our initial assumption about the cause should maybe be "lightning".
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    The largest Californian wildfire (2020) was attributed to lightning in an isolated area. But there are solid proofs that link one arsonist (at least one) with the --second largest-- wildfire in the full history of California (2021). Gary Stephen Maynard, an ex-teacher of criminology, was caught driving to several locations and setting multiple fires on public lands for no obvious reason. He was not the only people linked with wildfires on California. Not at all. This articles happily parroting that the problem is that we don't burn the forest enough, just add fuel to the future wildfires and groom the new pool of gullible puppets online. And burning is not free. It has nasty undesirable consequences on soil and water storage that newspapers always forget to remind.
    - pvaldes 3y ago
      Both types of wildfires are also different on nature: "California wildfires caused by humans are more dangerous than fires sparked by lightning" https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2022-06-22/california-wildfires-caused-by-humans-are-more-dangerous-than-fires-sparked-by-lightning https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2022-06-22/california-... "A 2017 study looking at wildfires fought by state or federal agencies from 1992 to 2012, found that people caused 84% of the blazes, adding an average of 40,000 wildfires per year across the USA".
      - zamfi 3y ago
        Look, your original post claimed “terrorists” but now you’re pointing to an article that merely says that most wildfires are caused by people. I even included accidental human-started wildfires (sparks from powerlines) as an example in my original post, where I use the regrettable phrase “non-human causes” to refer to “fire not deliberately caused by a human”, and I should have been more clear. If there were no people in the forests, there would be fewer fires, yes. It’s the conspiracy of “terrorists” claim that seems spurious. And again, sure, there may by lone criminals out there committing arson, but the claim that most wildfires are started by terrorists is what needs backing up, not the claim that there’s a human in the loop.

by zamfi 3y ago

pvaldes 3y ago

There is a even simpler explanation. Follow the patterns Starting multiple fire outbreaks (aiming to overpower the firefighters) is the standard procedure of every "professional" arsonist. Arsonists also do fire "tours". They drive, lights off, a secondary road without traffic and stop each few minutes to start outbreaks. This would easily mimick a chain of fire sparks starting from power lines in the road, but we know better because night-vision drones of the Spanish police videotaped some people red-handed doing exactly this. And this idiots had a surprise waiting at the end of the road. The problem is that most [1] of this people just are sent and paid for doing the job. When caught they fake mental issues and claim to act alone, but then you see that every single one of they follow exactly the same procedures, and know all the tricks to maximize the effect. [1] Arsonists searching revenge is the other category. They are strongly focused on smaller areas owned by the target

zamfi 3y ago
I'm not saying it's impossible that arsonists are starting some of these fires, and sure, some may be started in this way. I'm just saying that "lightning" is a simpler explanation than "well-coordinated major conspiracy of terrorists that succeeds at keeping things under wraps"---and so when, in California, a bunch of fires are started in a bunch of places where lightning struck dry timber in a fire-reliant ecosystem, our initial assumption about the cause should maybe be "lightning".
- pvaldes 3y ago
  The largest Californian wildfire (2020) was attributed to lightning in an isolated area. But there are solid proofs that link one arsonist (at least one) with the --second largest-- wildfire in the full history of California (2021). Gary Stephen Maynard, an ex-teacher of criminology, was caught driving to several locations and setting multiple fires on public lands for no obvious reason. He was not the only people linked with wildfires on California. Not at all. This articles happily parroting that the problem is that we don't burn the forest enough, just add fuel to the future wildfires and groom the new pool of gullible puppets online. And burning is not free. It has nasty undesirable consequences on soil and water storage that newspapers always forget to remind.
  - pvaldes 3y ago
    Both types of wildfires are also different on nature: "California wildfires caused by humans are more dangerous than fires sparked by lightning" https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2022-06-22/california-wildfires-caused-by-humans-are-more-dangerous-than-fires-sparked-by-lightning https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2022-06-22/california-... "A 2017 study looking at wildfires fought by state or federal agencies from 1992 to 2012, found that people caused 84% of the blazes, adding an average of 40,000 wildfires per year across the USA".
    - zamfi 3y ago
      Look, your original post claimed “terrorists” but now you’re pointing to an article that merely says that most wildfires are caused by people. I even included accidental human-started wildfires (sparks from powerlines) as an example in my original post, where I use the regrettable phrase “non-human causes” to refer to “fire not deliberately caused by a human”, and I should have been more clear. If there were no people in the forests, there would be fewer fires, yes. It’s the conspiracy of “terrorists” claim that seems spurious. And again, sure, there may by lone criminals out there committing arson, but the claim that most wildfires are started by terrorists is what needs backing up, not the claim that there’s a human in the loop.