Comments on: Carbon Emissions Bad, Forest Fires Good

By: The Redneck

The Redneck — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:49:17 +0000

They refuse to burn when they need to or allow fires to burn naturally–or, even better, Beeman, allow those eeeeeeeevil loggers to thin any trees–and even stop people from clearing brush on their own land….

Then Algore tells us that massive, destructive wildfires are proof of global warming.

By: canary

canary — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:24:27 +0000

They are insane. They have been genetically changing trees and shrubs to grow in shade. They have produced the 60′-100′ Blue Atlantis to grow only 1′ tall for ground covering or 30′ with more limbs. They have hybrid pre-annuals towards evergreens, and hybrid trees and bushes to grow in the shade. It’s amazing. Then there are many trees such as elm, poplar, oak, maple, that can grow fast in the shade from a seed, though they shed leaves. They are even crossing two different trees to make a fast growing healthier tree.

The Park isn’t even leaving the small sticks so greenies like my neighbor who has a lawn mower on a long extention cord, to compensate for her constant huge hand picked firebuilding pits.

one of those CSI fiction shows had a murdered, sexually mutilated tree hugger mystery along with a pun on the loss of nuts.
See what the Democrats have stirred up now with their list of sexualobias that must be tolerated. Didn’t watch and see who committed the murder, but law enforcement statistics would say the signs would point to a homosexual as the murderer. Does law enforcement have to change all their books to use the word gay, tree hugger, etc.

By: mbeeman4@hotmail.com

mbeeman4@hotmail.com — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:42:10 +0000

I have a better idea, rather than burning the forests to thin the forest population out: how about letting the loggers and paper companies come in and thin the forests out for you? Let’s use these trees, rather than placing more carbon in the air with a fire. That would truly be called managing nature. Maybe a Sequoia or two needs to come down.

By the way, I have a question: what do the firefighters do about the tree huggers? When they do their controlled burning, are the tree huggers simply considered “collateral damage?” Just let the loggers cut some trees down; that way, a tree hugger will only break a leg, or something, when his tree falls down, rather than losing his life in a controlled burning.

By: joeblough

joeblough — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:03:51 +0000

Incoherent premises lead logically to incoherent conclusions.

By: Zilla

Zilla — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:13:39 +0000

We should tax the forest fires. And the Polar Bears.

By: VMAN

VMAN — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:02:08 +0000

And how much less would the carbon footprint be if men went in with bulldozers and cleared the under brush? Oh but we can’t do that!!! If they let the people in Califoolya simply clear the brush around their houses it would cut down on fires but that might kill a snail darter or some squiglly little worm.

By: bill

bill — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:10:29 +0000

Hey when you add in third worlder’s agricultural fires …

Here is a site worth checking out …http://firefly.geog.umd.edu/firemap/
Shows where the fires are burning using the Aqua satellite … MODIS imager puts up an image a day of interest … http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/

So why aren’t we putting out fires?

By: proreason

proreason — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:36:46 +0000

Steve, you might have missed the key point on this one.

“The new mantra makes the distinction between wildfires, which are unwanted, unplanned and damaging, and forest fires which can often be beneficial.”

It’s all about wise management you see. A BAD thing (carbon emissions, expensive health insurance, risk-management by private industry) can be a very GOOD thing when managed by genius commissars (Turbo-Timmy, Drooling Barney).

By: Liberals Demise

Liberals Demise — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:35:37 +0000

What will the carbon footprint be when the “DOINKS” rub elbows in the snuff Capital of the world, Copenhagen?