SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to The Missoulian (archive):
Several of Missoula's top federal fire scientists have been denied permission to attend the International Fire Congress later this month, leading conference organizers to suspect censorship of climate-related research.
"Anyone who has anything related to climate-change research — right away was rejected," said Timothy Ingalsbee of the Association for Fire Ecology, a nonprofit group putting on the gathering. Ingalsbee noted that was his personal opinion, and that the AFE [Association for Fire Ecology] is concerned that a federal travel restriction policy may be more to blame.
The Missoulian also said (archive):
The scientists no longer attending include Matt Jolly, who was to present new work on "Climate-induced variations in global severe weather fire conditions," Karin Riley on "Fuel treatment effects at the landscape level: burn probabilities, flame lengths and fire suppression costs," Mike Battaglia on "Adaptive silviculture for climate change: Preparing dry mixed conifer forests for a more frequent fire regime," and Dave Calkin, who was working on ways to manage the human response to wildfire.
takyon: Also at Scientific American (thanks to another Anonymous Coward).
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @05:11AM (6 children)
I looked at the titles of the work that are mentioned in the summary. In my opinion, it isn't absurd to suppose that global warming could bring more episodes of hot weather. Nor is it absurd to suppose that fires could be more frequent if the weather were hotter. I say "global warming" rather than "climate change" because most of the Earth is getting warmer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @07:04AM (5 children)
If you are trying to deal with fire, you don't waste time on stuff that is way out of scope. Going on about possible climate change effects is unproductive. You may as well propose to pave the world like a giant parking lot to prevent fire -- which is sort of correct but completely out of scope of any reasonable discussion of fire.
Oh, and global warming will reduce fire because flooded land is wet.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 13 2017, @09:26AM
FYI, the new beaches in Huston are some thousand miles away from forest fires in California.
Dam'd forests, they managed to grow on hills, can't flood them that easy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @04:09PM
Or if you fix windows for a living you could just figure out how to fix windows better... or as an alternative stop the kid throwing rocks at the windows in order to have less windows to fix.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @05:08PM (2 children)
Uh... my take on those presentations is that they were describing how to fight fire in a changed climate... as in the climate's already changed, and here's what we need to know about fire prevention looking at 2018.
Just wow. You're clearly triggered by "climate change," you haven't seen anything beyond "climate change," and you've leaped to the conclusion that these are talks about climate change and not forest fire management.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @06:24PM (1 child)
It is only reasonable to believe that these talks are about climate change.
Forest fire management doesn't need to be concerned with climate change. We already know the deal and handle everything:
At the extremes, which won't be going away, there is no fire. The glaciers won't burn. The bare rock in southern Libya won't burn. Everything between those extremes is something that exists on Earth today, and is thus old news. We are not getting a new type of flammable landscape.
So there is no reason to put "climate change" in the titles of the talks, unless that is exactly what they are about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @11:20PM
>We are not getting a new type of flammable landscape.
In California they had a massive die-off of their forests.
https://soylentnews.org/politics/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=22537&page=1&cid=596068#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]