Forestry sustainability snippet from a former "preservationist"
super-stud at forestmeister.com
Wed Dec 24 17:50:46 EST 2003
Moore is an idiot, that is Patty Moore, not my hero Michael Moore.
"Larry Harrell" <lhfotoware at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a90c754.0312230750.7be4c7a6 at posting.google.com...
> I saw this snippet from Patrick Moore, formerly from Greenpeace, on
> another newsgroup. Of course, my views on forest restoration do NOT
> conflict with efforts to stem global warming. Vigorous and healthy
> forests lock up carbon dioxide and produce more oxygen than forests
> which are overstocked with slow-growing trees and infested with bark
> beetles. Stand replacement fires pump an unimaginable amount of CO2
> into our atmosphere, along with other nasty substances. Has there been
> any studies about how much CO2 comes from catastrophic fires?
> In our National Forests, sustainability is not the issue that concerns
> us as much as catastrophic fire. Amazingly enough, mortality has
> surpassed both growth AND harvesting on several Forests! Is THAT what
> the American public wants?
> I know, I know. I'm preaching to the choir here but we do have a few
> resident "preservationists".
> CEI: You've noted that "Sustainability is very much about what it is
> we want to sustain rather than some absolute or ideal state of being,"
> yet many environmental activists today pursue such an "absolute or
> ideal state of being" with a quasi-religious fervor. What do you think
> motivates this mindset?
> Moore: Ideologues have always been like that.
Who the hell is Patty Moore to call anyone an ideologue? He's so brainwashed
Patty used to really detest me and Karl Davies, because we were the only
ones who could really get his goat, especially if we called him "Patty". He
would dump on those "ideologues" but didn't like anyone tweaking his beard.
He would go beserk if I called him Patty- not sure why, that's a good Irish
> Sustainability is not a
> Utopia or Garden of Eden. Sustainability is a work in progress, and we
> will always be attempting to move closer to a sustainable state. As I
> said in my book, nothing is sustainable indefinitely.
> Even the sun,
> our main source of energy, will burn out one day.
DUH, thanks Patty for bringing that to our attention. Patty's such a dumb,
pretentious boob. <G>
> If you become more
> humble when using this term, you start thinking in terms of 50 to 100
> years rather than in two months or a year. I find it difficult to
> accept the environmentalist movement's anti-wood, anti-forestry
The VAST majority of enviros are NOT anti-wood- only a brain fucked SAF
loving IDIOT could continue to say that over and over and over. His brain is
> Trees are among our most abundant renewable energy resources.
Yuh, but Patty wouldn't have the guts to oppose massive clear-cutting and
high-grading and all the other beloved SAF practices.
> Environmental activists say they're in favor of renewable energy, just
> not trees and hydro-dams, which together account for 95 percent of
> renewable energy in the world. The environmentalists like photocells,
> but I view them as expensive roofing tile. They would have us tear
> down dams and stop cutting trees,
Maybe 1% of all enviros are that stupid. Patty's as dumb as our moron
president. (dodging as I hear Don Staples getting out his rocket propelled
> which would push us toward more
> toward fossil fuels and more CO2 emissions. Their policy on forestry
> is logically inconsistent with their policy on climate change and
> renewable energy.
> Larry, will others follow in Patrick Moore's footprints?
God forbid, so Larry, which list server is this on, the SAF excuse for an
intellectual discussion forum? <G> Oh, please tell me it's in a usenet
forum. They won't let me in the SAF lists any more.
More information about the Ag-forst