Jump to content

Burn, baby, Burn


cougar

Recommended Posts

We kept on building that bright future - one parking lot at a time, one estate at a time, a bridge here, another one there, doubling highways and pipelines, constantly building new ones, "harvesting" the forests, wildlife and fish in the most "sustainable" ways.  We went "green" many years ago.  We had habitat conservation organizations in place since the beginning of last century, when most wildlife populations were still in decent shape and most of the forests were still there.

They are not there any more!

But we hear our leaders will "act" as they take climate change "seriously". 

No they will not. They never have and never will.

Fighting a wildfire also has its environmental impacts - fossil fuels are burnt , which again contribute to the burning of the fires, warming up the atmosphere and creating more extreme events down the road.  The burnt structures and equipment will need to be replaced - again new damage to the environment as new trees need to be removed and new mines developed to produce what was destroyed. 

But those events become more frequent and more extreme, with heavier damages and the need to spend more time, effort and do more damage to replace what was lost.  A vicious circle of which our stupid mankind will not recover.

So, unlike most, I kind of welcome the damage and smoke.  I hope those affect the bigger cities, where the millions of consumers and politicians are hiding and talking about conservation while hoping things will continue the way they were in the foreseeable for them future.

This song is from 1971.  Just imagine the impacts our mankind has had on the environment since then!

 

 

Edited by cougar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'new age' RPF's think they're smarter than Mother Nature.  They've had it drummed into their little 'urban brains' that fire is bad . . . take it out of the equation.  With second growth logging, the ratio of debris/merchantable timber is close to even.  That slash/fuel is left unburned.  Re-gen tree planting is more difficult to complete, there is no cover for the seedlings, heat kills a high % of them.  Slash burning makes tree planting much easier and precise, there's a good cover for the seedlings with the almost instantaneous fireweed growth, and the re-gen is shielded from the killing heat/sun.

But, the 'new age' foresters know best . . . a lot of them have never been in the bush before . . . in all seasons, or laced up a pair of caulks.  Many try to tell you how to log your Timber Sale . . . . wet behind the ears city folks.  Meh!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/13/2021 at 7:49 AM, Nefarious Banana said:

. They've had it drummed into their little 'urban brains' that fire is bad . . . take it out of the equation.  .

In other words you think what is happening is normal and good for us and our forests?

And you base it al on the fact that there have been forest fires in the past.   Yes, there were forests fires 100 or more years ago, but those were nowhere close to the fires we see today.  In my lifetime I had never heard of forest fires in Greece, Turkey or the country I come from.  But there are fires now.  I had never heard of temperatures getting up to 50'C, but I hear of this now.   And as much as you might want to call it normal and part on Nature's Cycle of Life, it is not.

The UN released a 4,000 page report based on another 12,000 previous reports that tells you something I know and do not doubt, but something you want to deny.  It is climate change and it driven by humans and nothing else.

You can tell all those scientists you know better than them and that they are liars.  You can point them in the right direction - all those stupid professional foresters.

Honestly,  what you say or think does not matter.  What matters is, we have politicians stupid enough to think that they can continue to build pipelines , expand the economy, strip the forests and make money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, what you say and think does not matter.  Fire is the natural end to climax forest.  All your babble about the UN, Greece, Turkey, or wherever you came from is meaningless in the big plan of forestry.  You may have planted trees for a season  . . . who knows, but you know nothing of logging, fire, and re-gen.  It's so very evident in most all your posts.

The 'new-age' RPF kid doesn't know the practical side of forestry . . . . not until they've logged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cougar said:

....

The UN released a 4,000 page report based on another 12,000 previous reports that tells you something I know and do not doubt, but something you want to deny.  It is climate change and it driven by humans and nothing else.

You can tell all those scientists you know better than them and that they are liars.  You can point them in the right direction - all those stupid professional foresters.

....

When you use the word "deny" in discussing climate science, indeed any science, you have lost the argument.

Einstein never used the word "deny" to explain his ideas or models.

Indeed, it was the Catholic Church that used the word "deny" against Galileo.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever wondered where your MP's wonderful pension is coming from? Canada's biggest pension funds heavily invested in fossil fuel. Yes sure catastrophic events, all time records and irreversible change but... don't you get it, the smell of a fat green buck? That's just to bad but here's a pretty poster we made for you Joe!

Sure, let it burn, how could it not to, could it ever? We all witness the bonfire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really not as bad as the catastrophizers would have you believe.

It also mentions climate upsides like the fact that more CO₂ in the atmosphere has acted as a fertilizer and created a profound global greening of the planet. One NASA study found that over a period of 35 years, climate change has added an area of green equivalent to two times the size of Australia. But don’t expect to read about this in any of the breathless articles on climate impact.

...

Because of economic development, the UN estimates that the average person in the world will become 450 per cent as well-off by 2100 as they are today. But climate change will have a cost, in that adaptation and challenges become somewhat harder. Because of climate change, the average person in 2100 will “only” be 436 per cent as well off as today.

This is not the apocalypse but a problem to which we should find smart fixes.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-ipcc-global-warming-report-is-more-chill-than-you-have-read

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2021 at 11:00 PM, Nefarious Banana said:

.You may have planted trees for a season  . . . who knows, but you know nothing of logging, fire, and re-gen.  It's so very evident in most all your posts......

.

No, I have planted only trees in the garden.

I know all I need to know regarding how the forests, rivers and water circulation work, which is starting to now sink into other minds.

Quite often now I hear some of my sentiments on the radio, by some doctor of science, expert or whatever.  This also backed by the UN conclusions.

So your position is that of a person hanging off a rooftop , or standing on a small rock in the middle of a river with the water levels rising. 

Hang on, while you still can.

Edited by cougar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2021 at 9:02 AM, Argus said:

Because of climate change, the average person in 2100 will “only” be 436 per cent as well off as today.

 

This is not the apocalypse but a problem to which we should find smart fixes

 

🤣  This is really what you believe ?

Buddy, the way things are going, I think salmon will disappear in the next 20 years.

If you and me are still around we can revisit this subject and find out who had it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2021 at 8:55 AM, myata said:

Ever wondered where your MP's wonderful pension is coming from? Canada's biggest pension funds heavily invested in fossil fuel. Yes sure catastrophic events, all time records and irreversible change but... don't you get it, the smell of a fat green buck? That's just to bad but here's a pretty poster we made for you Joe!

Sure, let it burn, how could it not to, could it ever? We all witness the bonfire.

Yep.  Just received a letter from O'Tool. In it, he goes about how he wants to revive the "traditional Canadian industries like oil and gas, forestry, fishing and mining".

I wrote right over his letter "Is 50'C not hot enough for you dumb f'?"

Sealed it, put his own prepaid sticker on it and off it goes tomorrow to his Ottawa office.  He mailed it with my money, so I will not spend a dime to respond.

My final advice to him is to hide under a rock or shoot himself into outer space.

Not the sharpest Tool in the shed that O'Tool is.

Edited by cougar
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cougar said:

🤣  This is really what you believe ?

Buddy, the way things are going, I think salmon will disappear in the next 20 years.

If you and me are still around we can revisit this subject and find out who had it right.

I'll take that bet

the climate doom cult may think the sky is falling

but it's not

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what more do you propose to do?  With air travel down some 80%, fewer cars on the road, and in-person patronization of businesses down to 50% in many jurisdictions, we’re already quite shut down.  Pipelines are cleaner means of transporting oil but those are being canceled in favour of importation from undemocratic countries.   Basically we’ve veered into fascistic top-down control of human behaviour that is shifting from fighting one disease to fighting climate change.  Carbon taxes are climbing, housing prices are out of control, and 20,000 more political refugees are coming from Afghanistan.   Perhaps forests are burning at a greater rate than average, but our society has broken down in unprecedented ways and there isn’t much left to cut out of people’s lives or more taxes and costs to raise without destroying what remains of an economy and society that took tens of thousands of years to build.   How much more of a reset do you want?   We’re already living a kind of Jonestown mass suicide by a thousand cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to be optimistic and positive just don't see where it would come from, not today at least. In this country we had a tiny 20 million population with the resources of the half of the world, abundant everything. If sustainable, prosperous humanity is ever possible, where else it could be tried, to show an example?

Nope. Cut, cut, cut, fish, fish, fish, drain, drain, drain, kill, kill, kill as fast as possible, markets won't wait! Will there ever be enough? Keep dreaming.

Suppose ten years from now a miracle happens and we unlimited source of energy, a sun here on Earth. Will it solve all problems? Cut, cut, cut, sell, sell, sell ever accelerating tempo, 10x, 100x energy consumption all going somewhere, where? The problem is not carbon, it's the insatiable expansion: first drain, cut and sell, then think and regret. I don't think there's been one sustainable human civilization over millennia of history, recorded and unrecorded, unless the environment held the population at bare survival level, over population in limited resources means war. If you know how to be optimistic, short of total ignorance, please show the way.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2021 at 9:30 PM, cougar said:

1/  In other words you think what is happening is normal and good for us and our forests?

as much as you might want to call it normal and part on Nature's Cycle of Life, it is not.

2/ The UN released a 4,000 page report based on another 12,000 previous reports that tells you something I know and do not doubt, but something you want to deny.  It is climate change and it [b]driven by humans and nothing else.[/b]

You can tell all those scientists you know better than them and that they are liars. 

1.  Forest fires are indeed part of the cycle of life.   It is ESSENTIAL for coniferous forests to burn periodically.  Many species will only release their seeds when the cones are heated well beyond atmospheric temperatures.  Forests have and will continue to burn from "natural" causes forever.   IIRC, the pollution contribution of forest fires is significant, has been for millions of years and will continue to be for millions of years.

2/  NO responsible scientist would EVER make such a totally stupid statement.   Climate has changed constantly for the last few billion years and will continue to do so until the sun supernovas.   Is there an anthropomorphic contribution?   DUH!  of course there is.

The stupidity is far greater than our idiotic war on carbon (BTW, ESSENTIAL for forests to grow) but our complete lack of effective protection of our oceans (THE main carbon sink) - that and our total inability to control the #1 problem related to sustainability of our species - overpopulation.

So, why not deal with the REAL issues and make the hard decisions?   Far easier to just virtue signal by getting in line with the mindless UN BS.  And, no, most of the scientists cited are not liars, they are FUCKING IDIOTS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that fires exist, It's the record heat and drought that makes them worse, that is cause for concern. 

The Western part of this continent is in an extended period of perpetual drought and that will have consequences to our food supply. We'll need to adapt. Perhaps we don't need Almonds, as an example. 

Regarding Climate Change, the march to Net Zero is moving with or without Climate deniers. Almost all developed nation are on board. 

The concern is that emissions will continue to rise in the developing world as they can't afford the solutions the developed world is coming up with. So are we to subsidize their development. We should as we've benefited from 2 centuries of un-restricted carbon emissions, but now we stop then as they try to creep out of abject poverty? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Boges said:

It's not that fires exist, It's the record heat and drought that makes them worse, that is cause for concern. 

The Western part of this continent is in an extended period of perpetual drought and that will have consequences to our food supply. We'll need to adapt. Perhaps we don't need Almonds, as an example. 

Regarding Climate Change, the march to Net Zero is moving with or without Climate deniers. Almost all developed nation are on board. 

The concern is that emissions will continue to rise in the developing world as they can't afford the solutions the developed world is coming up with. So are we to subsidize their development. We should as we've benefited from 2 centuries of un-restricted carbon emissions, but now we stop then as they try to creep out of abject poverty? 

the developed world cannot get the undeveloped world to go along with net zero and no amount of bribes is going to get it done

your plan is doomed to failure

Edited by Yzermandius19
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

the developed world cannot get the undeveloped world to go along with net zero and no amount of bribes is going to get it done

your plan is doomed to failure

It's not bribes, it's investment. 

Right now the developed world, and China is included here, is investing in the wrong things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Boges said:

It's not bribes, it's investment. 

Right now the developed world, and China is included here, is investing in the wrong things.

no they are investing in the things that will get them out of poverty and aren't going to invest in the environment until after they are out of that

there is no end around shortcut, and if there was, they ain't buying it

there is nothing the developed world can do to force them into it, and trying to is a fool's errand

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, cougar said:

🤣  This is really what you believe ?

Buddy, the way things are going, I think salmon will disappear in the next 20 years.

If you and me are still around we can revisit this subject and find out who had it right.

Those are from the IPCC report. I didn't make them up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Argus said:

Those are from the IPCC report. I didn't make them up.

cougar will only believe the "science" when it claims the sky is falling because of humans destroying the environment and the only answer to that problem that cougar will accept is central planning that controls the behavior of others

anyone who does not parrot that narrative is a "denier"

the climate doom cult cannot be reasoned with

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boges said:

It's not that fires exist, It's the record heat and drought that makes them worse, that is cause for concern. 

The Western part of this continent is in an extended period of perpetual drought and that will have consequences to our food supply. We'll need to adapt. Perhaps we don't need Almonds, as an example. 

We should be looking into bringing water into the midwest (ours, not the yanks) for irrigation canals and pipes.

2 hours ago, Boges said:

The concern is that emissions will continue to rise in the developing world as they can't afford the solutions the developed world is coming up with. So are we to subsidize their development

The development of hundreds of coal fired power plants. Yeaaaahh, that's gonna help a lot.🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boges said:

It's not that fires exist, It's the record heat and drought that makes them worse, that is cause for concern. 

The Western part of this continent is in an extended period of perpetual drought and that will have consequences to our food supply. We'll need to adapt. Perhaps we don't need Almonds, as an example. 

Regarding Climate Change, the march to Net Zero is moving with or without Climate deniers. Almost all developed nation are on board. 

The concern is that emissions will continue to rise in the developing world as they can't afford the solutions the developed world is coming up with. So are we to subsidize their development. We should as we've benefited from 2 centuries of un-restricted carbon emissions, but now we stop then as they try to creep out of abject poverty? 

But abject poverty is rare in the developing world now.  We developed before climate became an issue.   Giving pollution passes to China and India will more than undo any reductions we make. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...