MisJif's Soapbox

Enviromentalist, do we need them?
Global Warming
Who's taking the heat for our Ecological Problems?
Protecting? Forests
Controling the Weather?
What is new on Global Warming?

Enviromentalist, do we need them?

I live in one of the biggest forests in Washington State, on the Pacific Coast, often referred to as a Rain Forest. When our trees rot and fall over environmentalists insist they be left for the bugs. Then everyone is worried about the bug population. The environmentalist are doing more to imbalance nature than any other single organization or group has ever done. Here is another fact that is not well known to those who do not live in Forested areas:

FACT: Federal incentive is based on the principle of self-interest. A property owner has a strong self-interest in preserving or improving the value of his property; a disinterested bureaucrat does not. As a Pacific Lumber Company brochure explains on private management of the forest: Because a continuous supply of trees is vital to The Pacific Lumber Company, we manage and cultivate our 194,000 acres of forestland carefully. We maintain access roads so we can protect our trees against forest fires, erosion, insects, or damage from human activity. We plant and nurture new seedlings to replace the trees we cut. We watch our lands as carefully as any good farmer would, because our lands represent our livelihood.

Contrast this to federal mismanagement of “public” forest lands, where fire hazards are created through inept or nonexistent timber harvesting and access roads are arbitrarily shut down to placate radical environmental interests. Federally owned logging concessions are frequently overharvested by timber companies, which have little incentive to economize on a resource that they do not own. Many federal forests, even those with substantial timber harvesting, are run at a loss to the tune of millions of wasted dollars annually.

Many of you heard of the Spotted Owl issue and the environmentalists claims that they would become extinct if a particular piece of forest wasn't left intact:

FACT: They were later found to making homes even in old abandon cars. So I think it would be safe to assume they wouldn't have minded moving to another forest area, if they left at all and they certainly wouldn't have become extinct.

Oh, Yeah and you heard the one about the Alaskan pipeline, how it's presence might upset the animals?

FACT: Bears use it for a high way, walking it for miles. Hows that for impacting nature!!

Global Warming

On March 15, TWC's climatologist Heidi Cullen appeared at the U.S. Senate Dirksen Building to support a disputed scientific report that asserted human activity was causing a catastrophic warming of the North Pole.

"We know that CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a greenhouse gas and it is warming the earth. We have known this for over 200 years now. We know that CO2 concentrations are increasing because of human activities. We can't debate to a certain extent anymore. We know this is clear, the globe is warming," Cullen also appeared to reveal her personal ideology when she joined Hollywood actors at the May 2004 premier of "The Day After Tomorrow," the politically charged and heavily publicized film that cost $125 million and provided what Gore called "a rare opportunity to have a national conversation about what truly should be seen as a global climate emergency." Wrote Marc Morano CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer in an April 14, 2005 article called "The Weather Channel Warms Up to Climate Change Theory". Morano went on to say, "Following the announcement, titled, "The Weather Channel Position Statement on Global Warming," Cullen began a regular segment called "Forecast Earth," to focus on climate change and other environmental issues." The The Weather Channel statement went even further by asserting that "humans are also changing the climate on a more localized level" through the eradication of "vegetation by buildings and roads. "Urbanization and deforestation can cause an increased tendency for flash floods and mudslides from heavy rain," The Weather Channel stated.

Now I don't believe in 'Global Warming', but if I did, I would have to agree with The Weather channels last statement. However my opinion is based on my knowledge of trees. I live in a rain forest so I know things like, trees breathe in bad air and put out fresh air. And no I'm not a tree hugger however I am grateful to the trees for giving us the air we breathe! And I do agree that cutting down huge amounts of forest to build a mall is pretty stupid considering you may need the air those trees provided some day. Builders, unlike loggers and lumber companies, don't replant! The ideal solution is every single tree that is cut down should be replaced somewhere! And it wouldn't be car emissions I was concerned about! I'd more concerned about testing nuclear or any other powerful explosives. Tipping the earths axis has a lot to do with global warming, if such a thing were true, as well as the other things listed below. By the way since we are on the subject of 'conspiracy theories' are the 'powers that be' still trying to come up with ways to control the weather?? And how much is that affecting our weather? Hummm.

Why is it we are the ones taking the blame for what Ecologists and the Government are doing to our environment?

Lionfish danger to reef life, study says:

Marine species show dismal survival rates when the predatory lionfish swim into their ecosystem, an Oregon State University study indicates. The study found when lionfish entered an area, survival rates other reef fishes fell by about 80 percent, ScienceDaily.com reported. The loss of some herbivorous fish permits seaweed potentially to overwhelm coral reefs and disrupt their ecological balance, scientists said. The study is the first to quantify the severity of the problems presented by the lionfish, native to the Pacific and Indian oceans and having few natural enemies in the Atlantic Ocean, scientists said. "This is a new and voracious predator on these coral reefs and (they're) undergoing a population explosion," said Mark Hixon, an Oregon State professor of zoology and expert on coral reef ecology. "The threats to coral reefs all over the world were already extreme, and they now have to deal with this alien predator in the Atlantic. These fish eat many other species and they seem to eat constantly." It is believed that the first lionfish -- known for dramatic coloring and large, spiny fins -- were introduced into waters off Florida in the early 1990s by aquariums or fish hobbyists.

"It is believed"? Isn't this another way to say "Assumed" and we've all heard what assuming is!!!! And who would not flush a fish down the toilet, an Environmentalist?

Protecting the Forests Against Insects and Diseases:

The forests are essential components in the quality of life of Québec’s citizens, and the government therefore does everything it can to develop and protect them, especially from the negative effects of insect infestations and diseases. The Department, as the manager of Québec’s public land, is responsible for ensuring that timber loss reduction strategies are applied in every area under management. Biological insecticides are used only as a last recourse, when there is no other choice. The Department has entrusted a non-profit agency known as the Société de protection des forêts contre les insectes et les maladies (SOPFIM) with responsibility for planning and carrying out spraying programs when there is no other way of protecting the forests. SOPFIM is composed of representatives from the Department, timber supply and forest management agreement (TSFMA) holders, forest management contract (FMC) holders and the owners of large woodlots (800 hectares in a single block).
Protecting the Forests Against Insects and Diseases

INSECT AND DISEASE PROTECTION

Over the last 25 to 30 years, nearly all mature softwood stands and many younger stands through the Island of Newfoundland have been significantly impacted by various insect pests. The major defoliators, spruce budworm and hemlock looper, have had serious and adverse impacts on the forest during the last thirty years. Protection of the forest from insects and disease is a vital component of overall forest management strategy. The Newfoundland Forest Service employs an Insect and Disease Protection program which has included a successful large-scale aerial spray program to combat the spruce budworm and hemlock looper in recent years. A more recent problem has been an infestation of Balsam Fir Sawfly in second-growth managed stands. After much discussion with Government regarding development and implementation, a control was resently initiated to combat this insect population. Insect and Disease protection

Stack this up against my little can of hair spray!!!!

Can China control the weather?

­The United States began weather control research in 1946. Some states use cloud-seeding programs in which they try to increase rainfall and snow levels or prevent hail that can damage crops. An eight-year experiment in Texas and Oklahoma, conducted over 5,000 square miles, showed that cloud seeding increased rainfall, cloud height, length of storms and the area in which rain fell Cloud Seeding

Hummm, could this be why we are having so many floods and storms, not to mention the weird Seasons!!!

So who is really messing with the environment, us and our cans of hair spray and car emissions or the governments paying billions of dollars to "study?", "fix?" and otherwise mess with the environment? Governments of the world and their favorite play thing being anything nuclear, how is it our fault the environment is suffering? Our trees for example are breathing in pollution (which is a good thing) and then exhaling fresh oxygen. Why were they created to do that? However, "large-scale aerial spraying" must be nearly as hard on the trees as the insects who are suppose to be there!! Not to mention the forest fires most likely caused by cloud seeding and whatever else they are doing to our weather. I am not against taking steps to ensure that nature is kept healthy but to me that means leaving it ALONE as well as cleaning up our own personal contributions that might affect it. Each person alone, not buying aresol canned products, keeping batteries out of the invironment and so on. But full scale government invasion into nature is causing much more damage than all the individuals on this planet. Nature can take care of herself without our interference!

What is new on Global Warming

MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data
Trendwatch
By Rick C. Hodgin
Thursday, October 30, 2008 09:55
Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

Methane - powerful greenhouse gas
The two lead authors of a paper published in this week's Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that as a result of the increase, several million tons of new methane is present in the atmosphere. Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun's light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse). Methane is typically broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earth's atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.

More study
Prinn has said, "The next step will be to study [these changes] using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks. The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus [an increase] in the rate of removal. Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each [is responsible for the overall increase]."

The primary concern now is that 2007 is long over. While the collected data from that time period reflects a simultaneous world-wide increase in emissions, observing atmospheric trends now is like observing the healthy horse running through the paddock a year after it overcame some mystery illness. Where does one even begin? And how relevant are any of the data findings at this late date? Looking back over 2007 data as it was captured may prove as ineffective if the data does not support the high resolution details such a study requires.

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.

Project funding
Rigby and Prinn carried out this study with help from researchers at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Bristol and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Methane gas measurements came from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE), which is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Australian CSIRO network.

UPDATE: October 31, 2008, 05:52am:
Several comments suggest a massive 2007 Siberian permafrost melt accounts for the observed increases in atmospheric methane. If Siberia were responsible for the increases, that would still be a northern hemisphere event and would require normal atmospheric cycling of about a year to reach southern hemisphere monitoring stations. These increases were nearly simultaneous and world-wide.

BACK