BF2S Forums Whitehouse Admitting Global Warming?

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I'm gonna buy a hunting permit and go bag one while I still can.

Good luck finding a polar bear in Florida.

k30dxedle wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I'm gonna buy a hunting permit and go bag one while I still can.

Good luck finding a polar bear in Florida.

I'd also buy a plane ticke to Nome Alaska.   Maybe I'll swing by Kodiak and see my birthplace again, then shoot a Brown Bear.

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

Soo tell me what species that has gone extinct because other reasons then man? And don´t say the dinosaurs. I say we have lots of resposibility for extinction.

Man is one of the many causes for extinction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction

[F7F&]KING_KaDaFFHi wrote:

Also you talked about global warming, all of theese things has to doo with global warming and removing natural habitats for species. You are right about trees beeing re-newable...but howcome many of the worlds forrests are vanishing then,  we are making things happen way too fast and we make things happen that aren´t natural.

People complain about the US removing an evil mass murderer, what do you suggest we do?  Go to war over cut down trees?  A meteor hit the Earth and millions of things died off.  That was pretty fast.  Would you call that natural?  Isn't the human species natural? 

[F7F7]KING_KaDaFFHi wrote:

Polarbears have tasks to fullfill, it might be to keep the penguins and seals on a natural level, who knows for sure, nature is complex. There would be no flowers if there wasn´t bees and soo on.... also it´s kinda hard for animals to defend themselves againts guns and melting ice wouldn´t you say? I say that humans have a big responsibility for their own actions.

What?  Polar bears walk in the snow and pick off seals every now and then.  Maybe Mother nature is trying to kill the polar bears off because they are taking too many and the Orcas are starving.  Humans do have a big responsibility for their actions.   That's why hunting polar bears is regulated.  Do you think that deer should be hunted?  Do you know what would happen if they weren't hunted?

There would be less flowers if there were no bees.  Wind transfers pollen too.
 

UON wrote:

Except that the "renewable" forests require massive fertilizer boosts (which usually comes from natural gas) and heavy machinery to maintain (which runs on oil), and the paper still needs to be bleached before it can be sold.

Last time I checked, I haven't fertilized my trees in my yard and they are still growing.  So then how about all of the trucks used to take the recycling stuff and the machines that separate it (opposed to the one truck that runs all of the trash to the dump)?  All of that other machinery run on oil too (as opposed to 1 truck used to take it to the dump).  So now instead of planting more trees your are just running more truck and using twice the amount of bleach (cause you are still going to be cutting down trees for paper -but you won't be planting any more)

UON wrote:

Farming forest is a bit like farming livestock, you need to pump a hell of a lot of resource into it to keep getting a return.  The soil would become infertile and barren otherwise.

Er... No they don't.  They rotate crop.  But that isn't how tree farming works.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2006-12-29 17:18:57)

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

Humans are nautal...our actions are not. It´s not natural to chop down the ammount of forrest we doo....a forrest-fire is natural, farming cattle with  hundred of thousands of animals in small areas aren´t natural, normal sized herds hunted in normal numbers in their natural habitant are. We have gone way beyond natural in many ways. And yes I know about regulated hunting...you say deers would bee to many if we didn´t hunt them...might be true...but who killed all the deers natural enemies at first, claiming that the very same animals killed their cattle?

You certainly don´t need to go to war for making nature more natural...most of the world already knows better then USA does on this subject, they have already changed their ways, not enough but it´s on it´s way.

This is a global resposibility that we all need too recognize, just take care of your forrests and recourses cuase no-one else will.

I still ain't buying.  How are humans chopping down a forrest and then replanting it less harmful then a lightning bolt starting a forrest fire (and nobody comes along to replant it)?

Farming cattle isn't about nature, it's about feeding a population (so we don't have to hunt polar bears).  I don't understand the "normal sized herds"  a small herd hunted  to feed a few is different from a large managed herd to feed millions how?   Logistics? 

Again, I ain't buying..

http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy111204.htm


As to your claim regarding about how the rest of the world know and the US doesn't... It's total BS

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179 … _fm-1.html

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2006-12-29 17:28:28)

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Last time I checked, I haven't fertilized my trees in my yard and they are still growing.  So then how about all of the trucks used to take the recycling stuff and the machines that separate it (opposed to the one truck that runs all of the trash to the dump)?  All of that other machinery run on oil too (as opposed to 1 truck used to take it to the dump).  So now instead of planting more trees your are just running more truck and using twice the amount of bleach (cause you are still going to be cutting down trees for paper -but you won't be planting any more)

UON wrote:

Farming forest is a bit like farming livestock, you need to pump a hell of a lot of resource into it to keep getting a return.  The soil would become infertile and barren otherwise.

Er... No they don't.  They rotate crop.  But that isn't how tree farming works.

Crop rotation isn't a substitute for fertilisation, it is a method for reducing it.  Anyway, crop rotation is a fairly low yield farming method, and severly limits the type of product you can grow.  Large scale farming has little need crop rotation, because they use massive amounts of pesticide which deals with the pests which would build up if crop rotation was not used.  This type of farming doesn't use a responsible mix of plants to keep the soil balanced, it uses chemicals.  This is basically how any product which doesn't say "organic" is grown.  And have a look at what the proportion of organic to non-organic food is in your local supermarket, you may be suprised. 

Growing a forest operates on basically the same principle.  You are relying on photosynthesis to create a product.  The trees are a resource/energy store, and unless you replenish the minerals and nutrients they need to grow, the soil will degrade. 

I bet you fertilize your lawn and flowerbeds.  Or someone does within reach of those trees.  You need to remember that those trees have roots as large if not larger than the tree itself, and that if there is a source of nutrient anywhere nearby they can survive, not to mention that nutrients and minerals will carry in underground water.  In a "renewable" forest consisting of only trees then the resources will be used much faster, and since the normal feedback loop where trees die and their carcuses rot and return to the earth is broken (as the trees are removed), so there won't be a natural loop to keeping the soil fertile.  And so artificial means are required to keep the trees growing at the fastest possible rate.

As KiNG_KaDaFFHi says, forest fires are a part of the natural lifecycle.  They are a great renewer of life in old forests, and are more harmful to humans than they are to the forest.  After all, fertility is deep in the land, and as a forest fire demonstrates, when the land beneath the thin layer of destruction caused by a forest fire is rich, new life will flourish in the aftermath.

[F7F7]KiNG_KaDaFFHi wrote:

Forrest fire are natural...you told me to watch Dicovery...seems you don´t watch much...when we chop down a forrest...we kill EVERYTHING there...all the seeds, all the natural habitants and all the plants too in time, fire actually can create life...many plants and species are dependant of bushfires,when replanting we plant what we want too reap. Not what was there at first.

And for the cattle issue...you really can´t see any differance between the huge farms you are running and the animals in their natural habitant then you don´t know what natural is...but then again USA is the land of the fake and the land of fertalizer and growth-hormons. Bigger is better huh? It´s all about who can produce the biggest beef for the lowet cost...not natural I say.

All this because we are lazy and comfortable.

Now you where talking of hunting also...thats more natural...actually I can respect that...going for your own beef and your own kill in their habitant. I say if you can´t kill the animal, then you shouldn´t be eating it.

And yes...the rest of the world are decades infront of USA in terms of preserving nature.

Man you are so far off base it is sad.  When a forest is cycled for paper, they replant.  All is not lost.  End of story. 

Lets insult the USA again to try and prove your point.  Here's my point.  How much farm land feeds how many people compared to centuries ago.  We use less land is have higher yields.  I don't know what you expect from us.  It is delusional to think that we should go 3rd world style.  Hell not only do we feed ourselves, but we send food overseas to 3rd world countries.  But should we say "screw them.  let them hunt and be natural."  NO!  That's just dumb and inhumane.

What's this "lazy we" stuff.  I'm a friggin' southerner.  I work hard.  I go out and shoot my dinners.  I also buy them from the market.  However I guess (from your post), you don't eat meat you don't kill.  You've never had a steak, or do you slaughter cows in your back yard?  I'd bet money that I kill / catch / clean and then eat more game/fish than you ever have or will. 

Screw "not natural", my friend.  It ain't about that.  It is about efficiently feeding a population.   And if the US can do it using less land and resources than the 3rd world country, I call that natural selection , survival of the fittest.

But damn man, what does this have to do with polar bears?

UON wrote:

Crop rotation isn't a substitute for fertilisation, it is a method for reducing it.  Anyway, crop rotation is a fairly low yield farming method, and severly limits the type of product you can grow.  Large scale farming has little need crop rotation, because they use massive amounts of pesticide which deals with the pests which would build up if crop rotation was not used.  This type of farming doesn't use a responsible mix of plants to keep the soil balanced, it uses chemicals.  This is basically how any product which doesn't say "organic" is grown.  And have a look at what the proportion of organic to non-organic food is in your local supermarket, you may be suprised. 

Growing a forest operates on basically the same principle.  You are relying on photosynthesis to create a product.  The trees are a resource/energy store, and unless you replenish the minerals and nutrients they need to grow, the soil will degrade. 

I bet you fertilize your lawn and flowerbeds.  Or someone does within reach of those trees.  You need to remember that those trees have roots as large if not larger than the tree itself, and that if there is a source of nutrient anywhere nearby they can survive, not to mention that nutrients and minerals will carry in underground water.  In a "renewable" forest consisting of only trees then the resources will be used much faster, and since the normal feedback loop where trees die and their carcuses rot and return to the earth is broken (as the trees are removed), so there won't be a natural loop to keeping the soil fertile.  And so artificial means are required to keep the trees growing at the fastest possible rate.

As KiNG_KaDaFFHi says, forest fires are a part of the natural lifecycle.  They are a great renewer of life in old forests, and are more harmful to humans than they are to the forest.  After all, fertility is deep in the land, and as a forest fire demonstrates, when the land beneath the thin layer of destruction caused by a forest fire is rich, new life will flourish in the aftermath.

Crop rotation (you-> Wrong)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation

My Lawns?  No fertilizer there.  It still grows just fine.  I'm not saying that farmers don't use fertilizers, but really, who gives a flying...  You don't think that the EPA is all over fertilizer regulations here?  Do you really think that the US is just some big "slash and burn / use it up / screw everyone else  / we don't care" country?  If you do, then man -I just feel sorry for you.
 
About your tree lots consumption theory, wrong again... There are many many forests that are in rotation for harvest.

And you seem to be stuck on forest fires.  Well, guess what, the forestry service regally does controlled burns.  They don't destroy all of the trees.  What's to say that the paper forests don't.?

Are there people who seriously don't believe the globe is warming significantly? As much as Al Gore gives me nausea I suggest watching An Inconvenient Truth. If not just for the raw data at least. The facts will sway even the staunchest nay sayer.

How do we help slow it? Reducing Co2 emissions would be a good start.

Blehm98 wrote:

Its funny how going to nuclear power would solve a lot of the arguments people have about us dumping CO2 into the air.

yet almost no one in the government, global warming believers or not, supports nuclear power.

discuss

Even with nuclear you'd still need some other source to supplement it, probably fossil fuels. But for the most part, a few more nuclear plants could probably reduce emissions significantly. I'm still not convinced our emissions are causing global warming.

Blehm98 wrote:

Its funny how going to nuclear power would solve a lot of the arguments people have about us dumping CO2 into the air.

yet almost no one in the government, global warming believers or not, supports nuclear power.

discuss

I support it, but we'd need to use Canada's method.  They have one of the cleanest nuclear waste disposal methods available.

Ahhh, wind power is one of the few alternative energy methods that is not only more than efficient enough to help, but it is clean.  But people fuss about the birds

Hydroelectricity works to a point, but people complain about the fish

Geothermal works very well, but no one wants to build geothermal plants because they are idiots

Solar power is a joke, it should be used for private purposes only, but there is no way it could run 10% of the planet

However, nuclear technology, alone with help from the other alternative sources, with some fossil fuels, could more than easily sustain the planet.  If you want to easily dispose of nuclear waste, the easiest way to get rid of it is to melt it into glass bricks, and drop them into a subduction zone off the coast of California.  This would ensure that we rid ourselves of nuclear waste for a very long time.  But there many environmentalists who just cannot deal with the thought of nuclear power, and they simply damagethe environment more

ATG wrote:

Oh Noez PolarBearz gonna get it!
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/interna … 1920622006

What can we do to stop this if it is happening?

Turn on our air conditioners and point them outside.

Blehm98 wrote:

Ahhh, wind power is one of the few alternative energy methods that is not only more than efficient enough to help, but it is clean.  But people fuss about the birds

Hydroelectricity works to a point, but people complain about the fish

The people who make those complaints can be easily ignored.  They miss the forest for the trees (no pun intended).  Besides, there are ways to design hydroelectric plants so that silt buildup is less of a concern.

Blehm98 wrote:

Geothermal works very well, but no one wants to build geothermal plants because they are idiots

Geothermal has two weaknesses.  First, there are limited areas where the energy is easy to reach.  Most areas of the world have a thick layer of soil that separate us from the source of the energy.  Iceland (as aceofspades mentioned) is one of the most suitable areas for harnessing geothermal energy, but there are a few areas of the U.S. where it is feasible.  The second problem is that the plants are expensive in the short run.  They do eventually pay for themselves though.

Blehm98 wrote:

Solar power is a joke, it should be used for private purposes only, but there is no way it could run 10% of the planet

Solar energy has more potential than you'd expect.  There are several areas of Europe that have organized citywide efforts to supplement their conventional power supply with solar energy.  This involves installing solar panels on everybody's roofs.  I've read some interesting articles about how some cities in Portugal and Germany have done this.

Blehm98 wrote:

However, nuclear technology, alone with help from the other alternative sources, with some fossil fuels, could more than easily sustain the planet.  If you want to easily dispose of nuclear waste, the easiest way to get rid of it is to melt it into glass bricks, and drop them into a subduction zone off the coast of California.  This would ensure that we rid ourselves of nuclear waste for a very long time.  But there many environmentalists who just cannot deal with the thought of nuclear power, and they simply damagethe environment more

Ignorance is the main thing keeping nuclear energy from being used as an alternative energy source.  People don't seem to realize that waste disposal methods have come a long way since the 1970s.  Canada has one of the cleanest nuclear power systems in the world, and I'm sure they'd be happy to advise us in how to develop a nuclear power infrastructure.

If anything, Canada is a more green-oriented country than America in mindset, and despite some recent increases in pollution, they have many interesting ideas that they have implemented in the attempt to be more environmentally friendly.  If America and Canada worked together on advancing nuclear power, we'd have a much cleaner continent.