Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Jesus...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
https://amgreatness.com/2020/09/09/environmentalists-destroyed-califor
nias-forests/

Whoopsie!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

I can't trust this source because I'm a TDS suffering, American hating cunt that needs Rachel Maddow to think for me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I just like to post complete made up bullshit because that's what I am - a bullshitter!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I just like to post complete made up bullshit because that's what I am - a bullshitter!

---

fify

I apologize to everyone for starting a thread to keep up with facts about SARS-COV-2, and driving JACKAREN over the edge with too much reality.
That and the fact that he's become a completely distorted political hack who trolls day and night.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Well, that and it lies a lot, which is why it leaves this key claim "Year after year, environmentalists litigated and lobbied to stop efforts to clear the forests through timber harvesting, underbrush removal, and controlled burns." unsourced.

Here's one example: logging (aka timber 'harvesting') as a tool for fire reduction. Now, maybe they think people are going to not think about that too much ... so here's the reality. The timber that's 'harvested' are the largest, most profitable trees. In reality, when 'harvesting' WAS TRIED the smallest trees, and tons of tree trash like branches, leaves and needles, AND the underbrush was left behind. It was a GREAT METHOD to create worse fires than ever.

And btw, saying that timber 'harvesting' is a way to reduce fires is like saying someone taking your valuables and ransacking your house is a good method of housecleaning.




There is only 1 way to clean up the forests that ever been tried and found successful, and it's NOT a money-maker. In fact, it's incredibly labor and equipment intensive, which makes it incredibly expensive. And that is to genuinely thin the forest of smaller trees leaving the big trees behind at larger spacing, clearing out the trash and underbrush, and THEN doing a controlled burn. And you have to do all of those 3 steps in that order, for it to work. 1 out of 3 doesn't work. 2 out of 3 doesn't work. Only 3 out of 3 works, but only in that order.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Jesus...

---

I know, right?

Marcos is laughing because he knows that his Antifa buddies are actually the ones that are destroying the California forests.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
Jesus...

---

I know, right?

Marcos is laughing because he knows that his Antifa buddies are actually the ones that are destroying the California forests.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Only an idiot like you could believe such a thing. You're just stupid. You believe lies and deny facts, wet brain.

---

Quote:

---

Doesn't the larger trees posses more carbon storage than the smaller trees?
Fire is rapid oxidation of carbon.

---

Quote:

---

And once a forest is thinned of large trees, isn't it easier to make a fire break quickly with smaller trees and brush? With timber shredders, bulldozers, etc? It would seem the huge trees are the obstruction to quickly making a path or swathe of bare ground.

---

Quote:

---

Also, I'm wondering if you are talking about thinning the entire forest, or merely swathes to break up the forest groups, plus wherever the edges of the forest are? What good would really be accomplished with thinning the entire central acreage of a forest?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Blame it on COVID.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm sure Obama regularly worried about trees in California.

In fact, I bet he didn't think about them once in 8 years.

STFU, idiot.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
How much does flushing all the water to sea influence the drought?


Environmentalists always demand the fresh water be drained straight to the ocean.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Indeed. Fuel loads have been building FOR DECADES in Federal lands, not just over three years.

This is just another case of SECOND's endless screeching about Trump/Republicans, blaming them for everything that has been going wrong over the past 40 years.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Indeed. Fuel loads have been building FOR DECADES in Federal lands, not just over three years.

This is just another case of SECOND's endless screeching about Trump/Republicans, blaming them for everything that has been going wrong over the past 40 years.

---

Signym, CO2 has been increasing for decades. Democrats can't clean up CO2 (and "Fuel loads," your two words) because the Republicans in the Senate have blocked them for decades.

Examples of how Republicans blocked CO2 rules:

Republicans move to stop EPA CO2 rules www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-climate/republicans-move-to-st
op-epa-co2-rules-idUSTRE72E6MZ20110315

How Rogue Republicans Killed Oregon’s Climate-Change Bill www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-rogue-republicans-killed-oregons-
climate-change-bill

There are 500,000 more examples of Republicans blocking CO2 regulation by Democrats: www.google.com/search?q=have+republicans+blocked+legislation+to+contro
l+CO2%3F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
[Removing CO2 from the atmosphere would be starving the flora of it's necessity. Brilliant, no matter how you look at it. Efforts to remove it, or how it would be a good thing to happen. Definitely a Democrap idea.

---