I’m melting! Yeah sure.

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Mr. P, Dec 30, 2005.

  1. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    The warming is bogus BS..
    The sad fact is, if we listen to these so called “environmentalists”, THEY will destroy the environment, not us. Don’t believe it, just look at the wild fires in the west, and ask why?

    http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. archangel
    Online

    archangel Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    natural Earth cycle brought on by volcanic action or forrest fires of a natural origin or a meteor strike...not to be confused with fossil fuel emissions!
    So I would agree with your assessment Mr.P...although living at the 6200' level some warming would be nice...Sigh...it has been pretty nice up here Tahoe is getting all the snow so far...we got about 6" but it melted away...hoo rah! temp 34-41 degrees today!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    You're right. Toxic substances like benzene and vinyl chloride are GOOD for the environment and we should emit as much of them as possible. Don't listen to these damn environmentalists!


    The reason forest fires are such a big problem is because all of the large, slow burning, hard to ignite, old growth trees have been replaced with a bunch of super flammable toothpicks.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    LOL...you DON'T have a clue kid.
     
  5. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    Well that's what a forester I met in Flagstaff, AZ, told me. He must not have a clue about forestry, though. The suggestion that a high density forest with toothpick trees will burn quicker than a low density forest with large old growth trees is just absurd, I suppose, and quite irrational and illogical.
     
  6. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    Your statement was...
    This is simply untrue. If managed properly new growth is not a problem.
    But what would I know, I only worked for one of the largest timber companies in the country for 10 years. ;)
     
  7. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    The reason human management of the forests is needed is because the forests are all densely planted toothpick trees.

    Are you actually claiming that larger trees ignite quicker than smaller ones ? Is that your claim?

    Or you are basing an argument off of a claim I didn't even make? I never said that forests couldnt' be properly managed! I only said that smaller trees ignite quicker than bigger ones, smarty pants. Doesn't take a 10 year vet of the timber industry to figure than one out.
     
  8. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    No you said….
    That is very misleading. Now if you had said….
    That is a true statement, and I would have never posted.
    It may seem like its nitpicking but it’s not. This is one of the environmentalist best tricks. That is to twist the truth slightly to fit their agenda. I’m not saying you intentionally did that, but the statement suggests only ONE reason when in fact there are many. Leading the way is a failed Federal Forest Management program.
     
  9. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258

    Yeah, I was totally trying to trick you. It seems like it is nitpicking because it is.

    If you had just said, "well there are other causes for forest fires" - I wouldn't think you were nitpicking. But instead we went on a several message exchange where you attempted to use your nitpickery to show off how you know more than me.




    How big of a problem are forest fires in forests that are untouched old growth?
     
  10. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +618
    You tell me, and don’t mislead again, define “Old Growth”, and name a forest that is “untouched”.

    Again kid, failed Forest Management is the root cause of so many fires.
     

Share This Page