6 ms·
I’ll take the other side here. First, ok you were right in that the redwoods of big basin seem very healthy right now. I was swayed personally, as a layperson,
by 2devnull 3y ago
I’ll take the other side here. First, ok you were right in that the redwoods of big basin seem very healthy right now. I was swayed personally, as a layperson, by the following argument: it’s possible that current wildfires differ from past wildfires in heat and intensity because of human factors like climate change and too much fire suppression. I hope I was NOT one of the people you felt ridiculed by, my only hope was that the notion be considered with some seriousness and rigor. It still seems possible to me that future wildfires operate differently than those of the past, and I still would favor cautious conservation policies in that regard.
- qup 3y agoWhat you call "cautious conservatism" is actually playing fast and loose with the rules, and doing the wrong thing, if the prescribed burns are actually important.
- 2devnull 3y agoNo. What I want is more unbiased scientific study of the topic before assuming we know for certain that climate change hasn’t altered the relationship between wildfire and forrest health. Funding more research is hardly “playing fast and loose” rather it is the opposite.