1 
Offline
Comment all you want, have at’er!
P.S. Argue with me, because I like to. And, I can probably back up most all things I say
Forum
Off Topic Forest Mismanagement to Blame for Forest Fires
Forest Mismanagement to Blame for Forest Fires
36 repliesComment all you want, have at’er!
P.S. Argue with me, because I like to. And, I can probably back up most all things I say
Okay fine, how did Neil Armstrong go to the moon when theres a dome over the flat earth!?
JohnMoe has written“Global Warming to blame for forest fires”. 99.9999999% completely false.
How do you even define who's to blame?
Is it the person/thing which caused it? Which did not enough do avoid it? Which had the most impact?
Quote
“Global Warming to blame for forest fires”. 99.9999999% completely false. Forest Mismanagement to blame.
What exactly does "99.9999999% completely false" mean in this context? Does it mean that forest management is responsible 99.9999999% and the rest goes to other things like global warming etc.?
Don't take the following part seriously. It's just something to think about:
Also are you aware that Trump said that forest mismanagement is to blame? Aren't you aware that this means that it can't be true because he is a politician (or at least pretends to be one)? Politicians never tell the truth. They come up with bogus explanations to distract people from the actual problems (which are much harder and much more expensive to solve)
Your going to start a full blown revolution with that kinda talk on funkyfart
Quote
What exactly does "99.9999999% completely false" mean in this context? Does it mean that forest management is responsible 99.9999999% and the rest goes to other things like global warming etc.?
@
DC: Well, I don't really believe in global warming. Global warming is a made up term by leftist groups for money and votes(please don't get me started on this). Yes, the Earth is warming, there is no denying that. I think that it is just another one of Earths cycles. There was times on earth when it was hotter than this, like the Eocene Epoch. Then there was, of course, the Ice Age. But yes, that .1% could be global warming. (its exaggerated you know...) Quote
You say you can prove me wrong?
Okay fine, how did Neil Armstrong go to the moon when theres a dome over the flat earth!?
Okay fine, how did Neil Armstrong go to the moon when theres a dome over the flat earth!?
@
Jawohl: Yes, I belive the Earth is a sphere, but that is a whole new conversation (more an argument) that I would rather avoid. edited 1×, last 17.11.18 06:02:13 pm
DC has writtenbecause he is a politician (or at least pretends to be one)
Oof, this remark wins the /thread.
JohnMoe: You still didn't explain how to define that blaming. This way the topic can't be discussed.Regarding global warming: It's clearly not a natural cycle. This has been proven scientifically. You can find details about it on Google. Of course you can still claim that this is all fake and that these scientists are paid by "leftist groups" to lie at us. I mean all scientist. All around the world. Super mighty leftist groups. Horrible people.
DC: I blame Forest Mismanagement for most forest fires. If they hadn't slowed down logging, there would be less forest fires today. When logging was strong, there was way less damage caused by forest fires because lack of fuel. What people don't understand about logging, is that it is good. Loggers have strict rules that they abide by. They do something called thinning where we cut all but the strongest trees, then replant. Apparently, loggers plant 6 trees to every 1 cut. Seriously no.
Logging is usually used to terraform land to develop more farmland, which causes more issues.
Jawohl: Quote
...dude no...
Seriously no.
Seriously no.
No what?
You don't understand logging do you? What you are implying is that all you know is a certain form of logging called Clear Cutting. Clear cutting is the removal of all trees from a given space of forest. Yes clear cutting is a great percent of all logging. Say, 60% But clear cutting isn't all that bad. The main objective of clear cutting is to regenerate the forest with healthier trees, not to harvest timber. In fact, loggers don't really even like clear cutting
because it forces them to spend unnecessary time and money cutting trees they have no use for. Trees smaller than ten inches in diameter are often stunted, poorly formed, genetically inferior trees that are just as old as the larger trees but have no chance of ever growing large themselves, no matter how old they get. It is best just to cut them down as they are worthless trees taking up space, sun, and nutrients that high-quality trees could use. Plus, clear cutting isn't bad for wildlife. Some species of wild life thrive better in clear cuts, and I know deer and elk eat a lot of stuff in clear cuts that they can't find in the trees. Wild life also gets a lot of cover in clear cuts. Back to the original conversation. Clear cuts also lower the risk of high damage caused by forest fires.
Some points you ignored:
- Did forest mismanagement cause the fire?
- Did forest mismanagement lead to a super dry forest which burns really well?
- Did forest management even have enough money and people to change things?
You could rephrase the hypothesis. Something like "Could better forest management have reduced the damage caused by the forest fires?" - then I would agree and say: "maybe!". But to simply blame them for all of this is too narrow-minded and wrong.
But when you just ask "who's to blame?" then you could also say "the idiots smoking in the forest" (or whatever caused the fire) or "weather conditions" and both would be equally true. Vague hypothesis = a lot of ways to interpret it = a lot of possible answers = no real discussion possible.
DC: True, true. But the fact remains. I still think that IF, we had better forest management, the damage from forest fires would be A LOT less. 1.
Quote
As I said before, the Earth is warming. There is no denying that. As the Earth gets warmer, it gets drier in some places and wetter in others. But I still think that it is just another earth cycle. Question. Besides melting ice caps and rising sea levels, what are the other downsides of global warming?Did forest mismanagement cause the fire?
2.
Quote
Actually, yes, it can. Not saying it does, but it can. Think of a lot of trees. And I mean A LOT of trees growing densely together. Then under those dense trees, there is a bit of brush. With all those trees and brush drinking all that water up, it can. But, Once they drink all that water, you will see them all die slowly.Did forest mismanagement lead to a super dry forest which burns really well?
It basically is just a cup of gasoline waiting to be lit.
But then, you might think, "But if all the plants are dead, it should create a "wet" forest again. Right?" Well yes, but over time. It creates really dry ground that just absorbs the water. But, it takes a long time to "re-wet" that dry of ground again.
But still, I think that so called "global warming", could and probably does contribute to that dryness.
2.
Quote
Yes, they did. If they would've just stayed on the path they were on, they would still have less fuel to burn. Which, in turn, means less forest fire damage and intensity.Did forest management even have enough money and people to change things?
Quote
You are true about that. But then it's not provocative enough to start a serious conversation.You could rephrase the hypothesis. Something like "Could better forest management have reduced the damage caused by the forest fires?" - then I would agree and say: "maybe!". But to simply blame them for all of this is too narrow-minded and wrong.
P.S. Did you create this website,
, using HTML? I am learning it and am just wondering. edited 1×, last 20.11.18 04:14:44 am
Do you honestly still think that it's just a natural cycle and that global warming "only" melts ice caps and rises sea levels? Then I highly recommend to read some scientific papers about it or to watch some serious videos about it. Global warming is a dead serious problem and it will hit us all in various negative ways. It would be a huge mistake to deny or ignore that.
(p.s. yes, plain HTML, CSS, JS, PHP, MySQL - the standard stuff)
edited 1×, last 20.11.18 11:19:39 pm
DC: Quote
yes, CO2 levels are rising faster then ever, but I'm not convinced either way. Do you honestly still think that it's just a natural cycle
@
ModJuicer: But trees just store carbon, not dispose of it. So either way you could never get trees to get rid of carbon. Plus, it is kinda off topic cuz we are talking about forest fires and forest mismanagement. We all are getting off topic. https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/23/major-trump-administration-climate-report-says-damages-are-intensifying-across-country
Fun fact: Trump made them publish that on Black Friday hoping that less people get to know the truth that way.
Seems like forest fires contribute to climate change, and climate change contribute to more forest fires, which contribute to more climate change. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's honestly silly to say that only one thing is responsible for an issue that can have many causes. But hey, anything in the name of sticking it to people you don't like, who trust outlandish things like "science" with their "evidence", those damn godless commie libtard NPCs y'all need Jesus Shapiro so you can stop poising the water that turns the fucking frogs gay.