Posted on 01/14/2008 10:08:55 AM PST by rellimpank
But lets NOT log them and make some use of them, plus stopping the beetle infestation. Let them die and become kindling for the next lightning strike.
As for Bayer's origin, sure it's a fact. But I don't think that represents them today whatsoever.
I G Farben was the company that built the synthfuel plants all over Germany for the war and Germany relied on these plants for a large percentge of its military oil product needs until the plants were bombed into scrap. This is the tech needed in the USA to somewhow crawl back to energy independence as Nixon wished.
Yep that's the claim. The winters aren't cold enough to kill off the beetles. (not that they ever were, but the average sheeple doesn't know that)
Thanks for the ping.
That fast ?
“’ mountain pine beetles will kill the majority of Colorado’s large-diameter lodgepole pine forests within three to five years...”
—nope—there is something like 100 million acres that would have to be done , tree by tree-—largely , Ma Nature (or Gaia) are gonna take care of this—
Coal to oil if I remember correctly, with the byproduct being coke for furnaces to make electricity and other industrial processes.
Geez, we better start a program to preserve the beetles, right? I mean, they’re endangered, aren’t they. Or they could be, right?
From Wikipedia: Mountain Pine Beetle
The beetles kill the trees by boring through the bark into the phloem layer on which they feed and in which eggs are laid. Pioneer female beetles initiate attacks, and produce pheromones which attract other beetles and results in mass attack.
Because the logs become unusable after they die off. They rot from the inside out.
Yes. Germany has coal. The military went from coal to oil, Navy especially in WW I, and armor and aviation would have been of zero use without oil products, and that is the entire modern military. Without oil, no country can even think of a drawn out military confrontation with an oil-rich country.
That’s what I understood as well. The beetles essentially “girdle” the tree under the bark.
A huge percentage of pinion pines between Tijeras and Taos have been killed. It seemed to stop about 8 miles north of my place a few years back, haven’t had any trees go yet. So far, it’s been very cold and we’ve gotten good moisture this winter.
Looked out into the yard through the -40 air and no Wikipedia was sighted and if they were the Troopers would be on the way.
In Troy, the city has ordered the cutting down of all ashs and the property owners have to foot the bill. Lots have houses have numerous huge trees that are going to be quite expensive.
Its a good time to be in the tree business here.......
Won't work. Once the beetles are in the tree they can't be killed. They have to be killed in the pupae stage when they move to healthy trees. Tree bands work best, but it's impossible to band an forrest. The next best think is harvesting the trees and stopping the spread by creating a buffer zone wider than they are able to migrate.
Wikipedia is actually very good, for the most part. There are a few topics that get some abuse, and you need to take those with a grain of salt, but mostly it's just fine.
...woulda been instantaneous!
I lost three 60 ft Monterrey Pines to these buggers last year. I wish there were a treatment, but once they strike a tree it’s only a matter of time.
Unless you are looking for facts, then, it's useless. When people use wikipedia to claim "fact" it tells me that they are too lazy to look up the actual facts. If I were a teacher and a student handed me a research assignment and used wikipedia as a fact source, I'd fail them.
While there may be some accuracy found on wikipedia, it's unreliable enough that NOTHING can be counted on to stand alone as fact if it is from wikipedia alone.
Any examples and/or evidence other than your assertion that this is so?
Other than pure anti-"them" bias, which we rightly condemn coming from the likes of the NYT, et al, what is your basis for making such a sweeping statement?
There are well in excess of 2 million articles in the English Wikipedia. Have you made a substantial review of a statistically significant number of these articles and found them to be factually incorrect? Have you found verifiable errors in more than a few articles?
I already included a disclaimer about some articles in Wikipedia, which are badly abused by politically-motivated jerks. I suspect those are some of the same articles you have a legitimate problem with. In my experience, those have been clearly political subjects and the questionable nature of parts of the articles is easy to spot.
I'm not comfortable with condemning the entire site because of those few bad apples.
Wikipedia remains, on the whole, a good and useful site.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.