Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:57:16 -0400
From: cryptik
Subject: Fisking the environmental “experts”
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 10:53:01 -0400
From: “Andrew George”
Subject: Crypic’s “facts”
>Since “Cryptic” seems interested in getting to the truth, please consider these facts:
>Cryptic writes: “What if you discover that humans clearing out old growth forests for timber and pulp prevents wildfires?”
>—Incorrect.. In fact, logging Old growth and other forms of logging are the NUMBER ONE CAUSE of wildfires. Clearing old fire-resistant trees, building roads, and increasing human traffic are the Number 1 cause of wildfires. Fact!
The four major natural causes of wildfire ignitions are lightning, volcanic eruption, sparks from rockfalls, and spontaneous combustion. If you don’t believe me, look it up yourself. If you don’t want to, feel free to start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>Cryptic writes: “Certainly a wildfire will kill a lot more animals than chopping down a thousand old trees, not to mention the threat they would post to any nearby human lives.”
>— Incorrect. In fact, most wildfires burn naturally, in mosaic patterns that are HEALTHY for the forest. Many forests evolved with fire and require them! Fact.
Animals smell fire coming a mile away and retreat. That much is true. They also hear the sounds of chainsaws and retreat the same way. Regardless of that, what you’ve said here doesn’t directly address my points.
>— And, people moving “nearby” wildland urban interface zones (near fire-prone forests) can reduce their chances of being burned by 90% if they have a tin roof and clear directly around their house.NOT clearing old growth (Fire resistant) trees deep in the forest. remember the number one cause of fires still?
A tin roof? You think a tin roof will stop a house from burning down? That’s not going to help. As for having a clearing around their house: not everyone can afford that indulgence, though perhaps you are personally affluent enough to have one. The last part is based on your false statement I’ve already shown is incorrect.
>Cryptic writes: “What about the fact that humans plant new trees to replace the old trees they chop down, thereby giving the forest newer, stronger trees than it had before?”
>— “What about the fact” ? Well, first of all it’s NOT true that you can replace old growth FORESTS with stands of plantation-grown monocultures. The new tree crops are not forests: they are weaker, genetically inferior, more susceptible to pest outbreaks, and MORE FIRE PRONE! And, in FACT, clearing a forest removes 90% of the original biodiversity. “newer stronger trees?” That’s a good one. Yeah, there are more trees now than when Columbus arrives, because 95% of the original old growth forests (with BIG TREES) have been cleared and replaced with spindly plantations of little pine trees.
Provide a source for this assertion or it shall be considered entirely speculative.
>Cryptic writes: “Or that the lack of old trees allows sunlight onto the forest floor where there was none, opening the area for growth of natural berries and wildflowers, feeding the animals on the ground and helping bees survive and thrive?”
>— Clearing the original forest canopy, IN FACT, destroys the herbaceous layer where most biodiversity exists, increases chances of wildfires, and exponentially increases threats from invasive species that are a major threat to native wildlife.
Source? I can’t find information supporting your statements excluding the (obvious) fact that clearing ANYTHING affects biodiversity.
>Cryptic’s “facts” are all debunked propaganda points from the logging industry. fortunately, reality has an environmental bias!
>Check out: Dogwoodalliance.org for more “facts”.
Congratulations on showing that you have an agenda.
>Andrew George, PhD
A Ph.D. is wholly irrelevant, as you have demonstrated.
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:59:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: mphorn22
Subject: Re Cryptic
>Cryptic (is that another made-up name from someone who just wants to badmouth?) carries bad logic.
Blatant ad hominem attack. You can’t dispute me on even ground, so you immediately question my credibility because I won’t tell you who to hurt to get back at me in real life. This attitude is pervasive on this list, but ideas and “facts” that cannot withstand scrutiny are simply not good ideas.
>(1) Bad logic #1. Cutting down large old trees in order to avoid forest fires is illogical…and came from GWBush. If you hold a lit match to an old tree or even a log from it, it will not catch fire. But hold that match to pine needles or a dead baby tree, and it WILL catch fire.
Bush is irrelevant. The source of information does not change the correctness of the information. Thinning forests is a very common preventative measure for forest fires. http://www.naturebridge.org/
>(2) Bad logic #2. Many vegans live decades without ever consuming meat nor getting the kind of strange illnesses Cryptic named. It’s because they know how to combine foods to create proteins, and many also take supplements to assure B12, etc.
I’m aware that vegans can largely lead a normal life if they play the extremely careful balancing act involved. If your diet needs ARTIFICIAL SUPPLEMENTS (which includes so-called “made from natural ingredients” stuff; it’s still man-made vitamin pills) then you are not consuming a diet that can be considered natural for humans. There are major considerations that must be taken into account, including trace minerals, vitamins (especially B-12 and D), COMPLETE protein profiles, and omega-3 fatty acids. Especially interesting from this source is this statement: “Lack of vitamin B-12 is one of the biggest concerns with vegan diets, especially because vegan diets are typically rich in folacin, which can mask B-12 deficiency symptoms. Severe B-12 deficiencies can result in both anemia and dementia, notes Harvard Medical School.” http://www.livestrong.com/
>(3) Bad logic # 3. Here are some of the many values of trees. Read and take them seriously.
We’ll see.
> • Trees are the lungs of the planet because they generate the oxygen needed by all humans and animals to survive more than a few minutes. (Oceans and other waters do the same; unfortunately, most are polluted and dying.)
We all know that trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen gas. That’s fourth grade science type stuff.
>• Trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide, thus cleansing the air of that element so toxic to us. Our air pollution is due in part to that as well as to the decreasing number of trees available to cleanse the air of all toxins. There are not enough left to do the job we need.
Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant gas. It kills people by starving them of oxygen. It is not classified as toxic or harmful. Here, have a basic primer on Wikipedia to correct your alarmism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>• Trees shade and cool us in the summer. Note: cities are significantly hotter than rural areas; the latter have significantly more trees than cities do.
Concrete and pavement are more dense and a better heat conductor than plant cells. What a revelation. /sarcasm
>• Evergreens help to keep us warmer in the cold months.
A line of trees will break the cold wind and keep it from cooling your home’s exterior. What a revelation. /sarcasm
>• Trees protect us against winter winds.
Let’s say the same thing twice!
>• Trees disperse strong winds. (West Virginia is a prime example. There were no tornados there until an east-west interstate was built through it. Residents say that now tornados follow that interstate, where there are no trees.) Thick and prevalent forests protect us from hurricanes a lot better than areas with much fewer trees.
Let’s say the same thing thrice! I’ll need a reliable source to support the rest of it. I’m not doing your supporting research for you.
>• Trees provide shade and protection for other plants, including ones that help to heal us.
Putting opaque objects between a person and the sun blocks the sun and creates shade. What a revelation. /sarcasm
>• Trees’ roots, along with the roots of smaller plants beneath their canopy, aerate the soil so that excess surface water is absorbed into the earth, therefore guarding against flooding.
This is true.
>• Trees’ roots pull up water from the depths of the planet, so that other trees and plants with shorter root systems can have water to grow.
Trees pull water up for themselves; a citation is required for proof that those trees somehow act as a well pump.
>• Trees send moisture into the air, evaporated, so that we can have rainfall and replenished water supply. Without trees, many other plants would die, resulting in massive droughts.
The first part is sort of true, but as an absolute statement it’s not quite that simple. The second part isn’t even a logically sound statement in the first place. http://blog.cifor.org/10316/
>• Trees prevent soil erosion……due to the three reasons stated directly above.
All plants help prevent soil erosion. Thanks, fourth grade science class!
>• Trees, especially in forested wilderness, provide shelter for birds and other animals whose excretions fertilize the soil thus making it richer for growing plants.
Obvious statement is obvious. Also, still repeating elementary school stuff.
>• Trees replenish our soil when leaves and dead wood are allowed to rot into the earth. A forestry expert once told me that an untidy forest is actually a healthy one because of its ability to replenish the soil. He said that a tidy, so-called “cleaned up,” forest is actually a sick one, a dying one, because the soil isn’t adequately replenished. By their supportive existence, trees allow other plants to turn stone into soil as well.
Obvious stuff; “circle of life” and all that. We’re swimming in middle school science classes now! Woo-hoo.
>• Trees sequester carbon within them. When they are cut down, that carbon is released into the air, thus compounding the CO2 toxic problem in our atmosphere.
This is all still stuff from childrens’ science classes. Your “toxic” assertion has already been shown as false.
>• Trees hold the earth’s crust onto the surface of the planet.
This is hilarious. If this is true, every desert and tundra would be breaking away into space. “Stupid” doesn’t even begin to cover it. To get a vague idea of just how far down the crust goes, check out this interesting thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>Seriously, Maryphyllis
That choice of wording is quite unfortunate, given the chosen ending to the post.