Reply #24: Then this attitude must support WARS??? [View All]

[Sugarbleus]

Kill off as many polluting useless humans as possible? Now that sounds like the Radicals on the right.

Listen, I SUPPORT sensible environmentalism/conservation. I'm OPPOSED TO EXTREMEISM.....that's what I"m saying. There is a LOT of junk science involved in this movement.

The movement started out pure, it's become entangled with radical politics that are anti everything... (generalizing here)

I still subscribe to "fundamental" tenets of environmentalism as a whole, but it has changed to become less concerned about the planet and more about RADICAL POLITICS that harms EVERYONE; some things are simply too anti-planet, anti-human, anti-social, antagognistic, paranoid, and FRAUDULENT

Just like now. I try to tell you I have my doubts and I get shit instead of dialog. IT'S TOO RADICAL AND NEEDS TO GO. This movement has become CRIMINAL to some extent. NOT ALL arms/agencies, mind you, but MOST.......worldwide!!!

For example; I've been going along with this movement for years, trying to understand...I learned some positive things and agree. BUT, have ANY of you EVER had doubts? Have ANY of you EVER looked into the alternative theories? hmmmmmmm? NO open minds?

You seem to be confussing my ideas with GLOBALISM and MASSIVE UNCONTROLLED corporatism; I firmly believe in regulating industry, but not killing it. I'm talking about the nit picking unscientific restrictions the movement puts on the general public, the land, it's use, sensible conservation.

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/columns/moore_patrick/1638074.html

How active management reduces wildfires
By actively managing forests we can help to maintain forests that are more open and resistant to natural catastrophe
By Patrick Moore
Author
"Green Spirit"
Dear Dr. Moore:

I've heard that forestry can help reduce the threat of wildfires. How does that work?

What you're talking about is referred to as active management. It means taking active steps in the forest to reduce natural catastrophes such as fire, disease or insect infestation. The alternative is to leave the forest alone and let nature take its course. It's a controversial subject. Some people believe that humans shouldn't interfere — that leaving the forest alone is always better. Throughout history, frequent low-intensity fires have played an important role in the health of forests and ecosystems, burning smaller trees and undergrowth and leaving large trees mostly intact.
...............snip

By suppressing these fires, we have created an unnatural build-up of what can best be described as fuel for much more devastating, catastrophic wildfires. North American forests are as abundant now as they were 100 years ago. But many, particularly in the U.S., are now overly dense and highly prone to fire. Some are also diseased and pose a very real danger to the healthy forests that surround them.

Catastrophic fires often burn at much higher temperatures than normal fires and cause incredible devastation. As we saw during last year's fire season, homes and even entire communities are lost or threatened. These fires also kill countless animals; pollute rivers, streams and lakes, resulting in the loss of entire fish populations; and leave the earth effectively sterilized for many years.

By actively managing these forests — removing dead wood and thinning the undergrowth, removing some trees, or intentionally burning areas that are distant from homes — we can help to maintain forests that are more open and resistant to natural catastrophe. We have a responsibility to use our knowledge and experience to help keep North American forests healthy. .................