On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:11:09 -0500, "Ian St. John"
wrote:


"David Ball" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:34:14 GMT, Larry Caldwell
wrote:

(David Ball) writes:

Jesus Murphy! Would you two kindly do a little thinking,
especially about the meaning of cause of effect. The fires were
CAUSED
by lightning or a careless camper or god-forbid...a MATCH! Think
about
it! Global warming is an effect. It cannot CAUSE anything. In the
case
you speak about Larry, the fire load in the forest EXACERBATED the
fires, but it sure as hell did not cause them. Long periods of dry
weather can EXACERBATE the fire situation, Alistair, but it does
not
CAUSE the fire in the first place. Fire load and dry weather are
contributing factors to the extent and severity of the fire, but
they
are not, EVER, the cause.

You have a pretty narrow version of causality there, David. If
forest
fires are caused by lighting or carelessness, why don't we have
forest
fires in the winter?

I have a pretty accurate version of causality. Kindly show me,
Larry, how to start a fire just by putting wood into a pile?

uh, oh.... David. Not to burst your bubble but you *can* do that. In my
hometown the used to be a large 'pit' that contained rather extensive
piles of 'sawdust'. It would catch fire at regular intervals from
'spontaneous combustion'. Just wood in a pile... ;-)

I didn't ask you about spontaneous combustion, Larry. I asked
you to start a forest fire by piling up wood, the implication being
along the lines of the fuel loading you describe in your original
post. It would be like saying that a person dies because they fall off
a building. As the adage goes, it isn't the fall that kills, but the
sudden stop at the bottom. If falling killed, the mortality rate for
sky-divers would be rather high...like 100%. As I said in my original
reply, fuel loading will certainly exacerbate a fire, but then so will
exceptionally dry conditions. It's just that neither causes the fire.