Posted on 02/16/2009 11:22:16 AM PST by Zakeet
Erwin Knoll said, “Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true, except for that rare story of which you happen to have first hand knowledge.” Most media coverage of the disastrous fires in Australia missed important information and directly or indirectly quoted environmentalists who incorrectly attributed them to global warming. It was another shameless attempt to divert attention away from the cooling trend that undermines the hypothesis that humans are causing warming. The story was also another example of how environmentalism pushed without understanding is potentially devastating. Fire tragedy highlights scale of global warming emergency and need for real action” is a typical headline over a story that leaves out most of the relevant information that would put the entire event in perspective.
There was a period of warmer temperatures in the Victoria region but most of the rest of Australia was at or below normal temperatures and extremely wet.
[Snip]
Environmentalists who don’t know what they are talking about have forced the practice of preventing fires. There are examples in many places worldwide including policies in Federal parks in Canada and the US. Yellowstone fires a few years ago were a good example. A policy of no back-burning or hazard reduction created fuel ready to burn. In Victoria policies are so draconian that severe fines exist for clearing their property of trees. One family was fined $50,000 for building a firebreak.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
At a meeting in an Australian community near Melbourne one man said in true Australian style, “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down.”
Note: This article is a good read on enviro-wackoism and Globull Warming.
The same thing has happened in Yellowstone Park and in Berkley and in LA. They just keep repeating the same old mistakes.
It isn’t like they’ll be upset because just think how many people will no longer be around to leave a carbon footprint.
Environmentalism is nothing more than terrorism for Liberals...
Thanks for posting....and again Canada Free Press comes thru
Fires are natural have a natural cleansing effect. Animals may get hurt in the process, but we all know know Mother nature is a heartless bitch.
Native Americans and Australian aborigines had been routinely setting the landscape on fire every year for probably 10,000 years or more when whitey showed up.
IOW, the ecosystem had evolved to incorporate being regularly set on fire by people. When this element of the system was removed, unintended and negative consequences resulted.
But look at the size of their methane footprint...
I live in a town that has a huge environMENTAL corps. Most of those people have an aroma about them because they tend to eschew using deodorants of any kind. What we really need is a huge tax on body odor to put those stinkers out of business.
And the reason for it is that mature forests provide little to eat for deer and other hunted wildlife. Deer don't eat trees. They eat leaves from saplings and plants. They exist at the interface between forest and meadow.
North America was not a primeval wilderness when the white man arrived. It was a managed game park, had been for more than 10,000 years.
The primary management tool was fire.
Also in Arizona forests near Payson and Prescott, and in the wooded areas of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The woods going up the hill to Big Bear on the Lucerne Valley side are devastated by trees killed by the bark beetle, but according to policy, the trees must stand there and await “natural” decomposition. However the fires usually get to them first and boy do they burn!
Under natural conditions there would have been many fires in the meantime to keep the trees healthy and strong.
Yep. Some of the best forests in Arizona are on the San Carlos Reservation. The forests are a beautiful mix of evergreen and broadleaf trees, and they very seldom have fires there. Go across the reservation boundary up to Pinetop/Lakeside, and it’s a monoculture forest of Ponderosa Pine.
There are a lot of sarcastic signs up there “thanking” the environMENTALists.
Yea it amazes me that more intellectuals allow statements by these junk science idiots to go unchallenged.
They continually espouse views that could be debunked by the average American conservationist(ie farmers).
There are far greater amounts of forest reserves than there was in the 1800s before they started cutting forest land to sell. However the longer these types of policies are allowed to stay in place the more forests will be destroyed by fire.
It is another example of management by exception rather than management by common sense.
Tell that to the morons who move out here from the DC ‘burbs.
They buy mountain land, cut down all the trees and then *replace* the trees with thousands of dollars worth of exotic shrubbery and saplings for “landscaping”.
Their yards [briefly] look like manicured botanical parks.
About a week later, their yards look like locusts have come through, followed by a mudslide.
[I try not to laugh but they wanted that “becoming one with nature” experience. Welcome to the wilderness, pilgrims. The deer thank you for the free buffet and those ‘ugly old trees’ were keeping the dirt from slipping down to the valley after it rains.]
;]
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.
