-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Open Question:
Have forest fires grown in size and quantity in the last 50 years, or at least since we started putting them out?
Have forest fires grown in size and quantity in the last 50 years, or at least since we started putting them out?
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
Yes they have. They started growing in the 1970s in the US when the United States' Academics recommended Goverment stop doing cyclic maintenance burns to clear away old diseased growth.
This management method by government employees led to explosive growth in forest fires in the United States and other places officials followed the U.S.'s non-maintenance/put all fires out ASAP methodology worldwide.
It's much less expensive, much less dangerous for the government employees, and much less pure work, to not maintain forests with cyclic burns: but it looks far better till it does burn,
and it makes far less smoke & soot over wide regions,
and the people not setting the prescriptive fires
can't be sued
for fires they don't start - and don't have to foot the expense of regular re-planting,
and don't have to deal with private enterprise in putting up with logging.
So everywhere people go to Western Universities to get their Wilderness/Forestry Maintenance degrees, forest fires have been blowing up everywhere these same Westerners manage forested or wilderness areas.
This method of management is 1/5th the headaches for government employees and money that doesn't get spent maintaining the forests can be spent on the government employee unions. Nice new trucks and cars that never get muddy or dirty, etc.
Not only have wildfires exploded in number and ferocity but human beings SET the VAST MAJORITY of these fires, too.
It's been officially documented in the United States, and this is also known to be true in most of the rest of the world.
84% of Wildfires Caused by Humans
"...researchers from the University of Colorado, Boulder’s Earth Lab took a deep dive into the U.S. Forest Service’s Fire Program Analysis-Fire Occurrence Database,
analyzing all wildfires recorded between 1992 and 2012.
The researchers found that humans caused more than 1.2 million of the 1.5 million blazes in the database.
https://goo.gl/r1bJqf
One of the main ways they know these fires are set by people around the rest of the world is there is a global lightening monitoring network or patch of networks, using airport and other weather radars.
So they know about how many fires are being started by lightening and that number isn't actually growing or isn't growing by much, especially considering everywhere Westerners have been going, they both stopped most prescribed burning and, put out any fires they can ASAP: ever more often, using aircraft and a variety of sophisticated suppression methods; causing the ones that do start to be huge.
South American and Asian countries getting US and overall Western aid, are able to get multiple aircraft types to put out fires they couldn't put out previously, so they've been suppressing fires for decades now, too.
It's a self-reinforcing problem. The more equipment people get to fight fire on an industrial size level with aircraft, the easier it is to suppress all fire for many miles in any direction.
As unburned forest expands in every direction, ever deeper in dead material, more and more people are using the apparently pristine areas.
Since people use fire all the time, even when just getting out where they're going, it's just necessary to their existence, the numbers of fires go up and the seriousness of the ones not put out immediately grows.
It also causes parasites and diseases to spread.
This management method by government employees led to explosive growth in forest fires in the United States and other places officials followed the U.S.'s non-maintenance/put all fires out ASAP methodology worldwide.
It's much less expensive, much less dangerous for the government employees, and much less pure work, to not maintain forests with cyclic burns: but it looks far better till it does burn,
and it makes far less smoke & soot over wide regions,
and the people not setting the prescriptive fires
can't be sued
for fires they don't start - and don't have to foot the expense of regular re-planting,
and don't have to deal with private enterprise in putting up with logging.
So everywhere people go to Western Universities to get their Wilderness/Forestry Maintenance degrees, forest fires have been blowing up everywhere these same Westerners manage forested or wilderness areas.
This method of management is 1/5th the headaches for government employees and money that doesn't get spent maintaining the forests can be spent on the government employee unions. Nice new trucks and cars that never get muddy or dirty, etc.
Not only have wildfires exploded in number and ferocity but human beings SET the VAST MAJORITY of these fires, too.
It's been officially documented in the United States, and this is also known to be true in most of the rest of the world.
84% of Wildfires Caused by Humans
"...researchers from the University of Colorado, Boulder’s Earth Lab took a deep dive into the U.S. Forest Service’s Fire Program Analysis-Fire Occurrence Database,
analyzing all wildfires recorded between 1992 and 2012.
The researchers found that humans caused more than 1.2 million of the 1.5 million blazes in the database.
https://goo.gl/r1bJqf
One of the main ways they know these fires are set by people around the rest of the world is there is a global lightening monitoring network or patch of networks, using airport and other weather radars.
So they know about how many fires are being started by lightening and that number isn't actually growing or isn't growing by much, especially considering everywhere Westerners have been going, they both stopped most prescribed burning and, put out any fires they can ASAP: ever more often, using aircraft and a variety of sophisticated suppression methods; causing the ones that do start to be huge.
South American and Asian countries getting US and overall Western aid, are able to get multiple aircraft types to put out fires they couldn't put out previously, so they've been suppressing fires for decades now, too.
It's a self-reinforcing problem. The more equipment people get to fight fire on an industrial size level with aircraft, the easier it is to suppress all fire for many miles in any direction.
As unburned forest expands in every direction, ever deeper in dead material, more and more people are using the apparently pristine areas.
Since people use fire all the time, even when just getting out where they're going, it's just necessary to their existence, the numbers of fires go up and the seriousness of the ones not put out immediately grows.
It also causes parasites and diseases to spread.
NASA Climate Science Link
NASA Climate Science Link
This is a great resource!
https://climate.nasa.gov/
The mission of “Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet” is to provide the public with accurate and timely news and information about Earth’s changing climate, along with current data and visualizations, presented from the unique perspective of NASA, one of the world’s leading climate research agencies.
NASA Climate Science Link
This is a great resource!
https://climate.nasa.gov/
The mission of “Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet” is to provide the public with accurate and timely news and information about Earth’s changing climate, along with current data and visualizations, presented from the unique perspective of NASA, one of the world’s leading climate research agencies.
paradoxlost
Member
The arctic ice cap melting will not raise ocean levels. It's the ice that comes off the land in Greenland, Northern Europe, Canada, Russia, and Antarctica that will raise ocean levels.
isotasy brah
Study: Fire seasons getting longer, more frequent-NASA
Study: Fire seasons getting longer, more frequent-NASA
A new analysis of 35 years of meteorological data confirms fire seasons have become longer. Fire season, which varies in timing and duration based on location, is defined as the time of year when wildfires are most likely to ignite, spread, and affect resources.
The researchers found that fire weather seasons have lengthened across one quarter of Earth’s vegetated surface. In certain areas, extending the fire season by a bit each year added up to a large change over the full study period. For instance, parts of the western United States and Mexico, Brazil, and East Africa now face wildfire seasons that are more than a month longer than they were 35 years ago.
The authors attribute the longer season in the western United States to changes in the timing of snowmelt, vapor pressure, and the timing of spring rains—all of which have been linked to global warming and climate change.
References
Jolly, M. et al, (2015, July 14) Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nature Communications, (6) 7537.
Study: Fire seasons getting longer, more frequent-NASA
A new analysis of 35 years of meteorological data confirms fire seasons have become longer. Fire season, which varies in timing and duration based on location, is defined as the time of year when wildfires are most likely to ignite, spread, and affect resources.
The researchers found that fire weather seasons have lengthened across one quarter of Earth’s vegetated surface. In certain areas, extending the fire season by a bit each year added up to a large change over the full study period. For instance, parts of the western United States and Mexico, Brazil, and East Africa now face wildfire seasons that are more than a month longer than they were 35 years ago.
The authors attribute the longer season in the western United States to changes in the timing of snowmelt, vapor pressure, and the timing of spring rains—all of which have been linked to global warming and climate change.
References
Jolly, M. et al, (2015, July 14) Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nature Communications, (6) 7537.
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
But not to the actual reason for the longer fire season: under-managed forests never allowed to burn,
drinking every last drop out of land it normally doesn't overgrow so bad,
then having people driving through it like it's never going to catch on fire.
"..The University of Colorado, Boulder’s Earth Lab took a deep dive into the U.S. Forest Service’s Fire Program Analysis-Fire Occurrence Database,
analyzing all wildfires recorded between 1992 and 2012.
The researchers found that humans caused more than 1.2 million of the 1.5 million blazes in the database, or 84% of them.
The cost of those human-induced fires is staggering.
The researchers estimate that man-made fires have tripled the average fire season over the past 21 years from 46 days to 154 days.
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
https://goo.gl/r1bJqf
drinking every last drop out of land it normally doesn't overgrow so bad,
then having people driving through it like it's never going to catch on fire.
"..The University of Colorado, Boulder’s Earth Lab took a deep dive into the U.S. Forest Service’s Fire Program Analysis-Fire Occurrence Database,
analyzing all wildfires recorded between 1992 and 2012.
The researchers found that humans caused more than 1.2 million of the 1.5 million blazes in the database, or 84% of them.
The cost of those human-induced fires is staggering.
The researchers estimate that man-made fires have tripled the average fire season over the past 21 years from 46 days to 154 days.
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
https://goo.gl/r1bJqf
paradoxlost
Member
idk i've been out in areas where the blm is like this place needs a controlled burn and it doesn't seem that over grown. I know fires are a normal part of ecology, but some of the places look like they're not even an old growth forest yet and you got resource specialist going, gotta burn it soon.
Coastal Pacific Oxygen Levels Now Plummet Once A Year
Coastal Pacific Oxygen Levels Now Plummet Once A Year
Scientists say West Coast waters now have a hypoxia season, or dead-zone season, just like the wildfire season.
Hypoxia is a condition in which the ocean water close to the seafloor has such low levels of dissolved oxygen that the organisms living down there die.
Crabber David Bailey, who skippers the Morningstar II, is rattled by the news. He remembers a hypoxia event out of Newport, Oregon, about a decade ago. He says it shows up "like a flip of a switch."
"If there are crabs in the pot, they're dead. Straight up," Bailey says. And if you re-bait the pots, "when you go out the next time, they're blanks, they're absolutely empty. The crabs have left the area."
A hypoxia event will kill everything that can't swim away—animals like crabs, sea cucumbers and sea stars.
The hypoxia season hits Oregon, Washington and California waters in the summer and can last from a few of days to a couple of months. Some years it only affects a few square miles of ocean; other years it's thousands of square miles.
Video taken by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2006 showed dead marine life littering the sea floor.
"We can now say that Oregon has a hypoxia season much like the wildfire season," says Francis Chan, co-chair of the California Hypoxia Science Task Force.
"These reefs that used to be full of rockfish, they were all gone and a lot of the marine life: the sea stars, the sea cucumbers. They were dead," says Chan.
The question now is: Why is this happening?
"One of the more fundamental reasons is that the ocean is warmer now and warmer water holds less oxygen," says Chan. "And then the second part is that a warmer surface ocean, it acts as an insulating blanket."
So that blanket stops colder low-oxygen water from rising up and mixing with oxygen in the surf.
Scientists say climate change is behind this. The ocean has been absorbing nearly all the rising heat from greenhouse gas emissions, and it's projected to grow even warmer in coming decades.
Coastal Pacific Oxygen Levels Now Plummet Once A Year
Scientists say West Coast waters now have a hypoxia season, or dead-zone season, just like the wildfire season.
Hypoxia is a condition in which the ocean water close to the seafloor has such low levels of dissolved oxygen that the organisms living down there die.
Crabber David Bailey, who skippers the Morningstar II, is rattled by the news. He remembers a hypoxia event out of Newport, Oregon, about a decade ago. He says it shows up "like a flip of a switch."
"If there are crabs in the pot, they're dead. Straight up," Bailey says. And if you re-bait the pots, "when you go out the next time, they're blanks, they're absolutely empty. The crabs have left the area."
A hypoxia event will kill everything that can't swim away—animals like crabs, sea cucumbers and sea stars.
The hypoxia season hits Oregon, Washington and California waters in the summer and can last from a few of days to a couple of months. Some years it only affects a few square miles of ocean; other years it's thousands of square miles.
Video taken by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2006 showed dead marine life littering the sea floor.
"We can now say that Oregon has a hypoxia season much like the wildfire season," says Francis Chan, co-chair of the California Hypoxia Science Task Force.
"These reefs that used to be full of rockfish, they were all gone and a lot of the marine life: the sea stars, the sea cucumbers. They were dead," says Chan.
The question now is: Why is this happening?
"One of the more fundamental reasons is that the ocean is warmer now and warmer water holds less oxygen," says Chan. "And then the second part is that a warmer surface ocean, it acts as an insulating blanket."
So that blanket stops colder low-oxygen water from rising up and mixing with oxygen in the surf.
Scientists say climate change is behind this. The ocean has been absorbing nearly all the rising heat from greenhouse gas emissions, and it's projected to grow even warmer in coming decades.
No, forest fires have not grown in number or size. Completely false.
Here is a full report on the numbers:
https://www.theblaze.com/video/firs...nge-and-californias-record-breaking-wildfires
watch the entire video.
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
"Scientists say" pot's like heroin and worse for one than a methamphetamine needle hanging out of your arm.
Warm periods are named Global Climate Optima, end of story. Cold weather creatures that evolve in the 94% of time the planet is in cold glaciation, are driven back during warm Optimum type conditions.
The fakes you believe in, think the gases making nearly 30% less energy warm the Earth are gonna make it hotter than if 100% warmed it
by making the 30% less warm it.
"About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earth’s climate system."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance
Just a few paragraphs after explaining to you the cooling GHGs and some dust are stopping 29% of all energy from joining Earth's system they tell you that means that Earth and it's atmosphere only have to account for 71% of total sunlight energy.
"The atmosphere and the surface of the Earth together absorb 71 percent of incoming solar radiation, so together, they must radiate that much energy back to space..."
then a few paragraphs later, they break the big news to you about the Magical Gaissiness what makes makes more energy come out of the planet by making less go into it:
'Effect on Surface Temperature'
The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. "
Since you obviously didn't do well in science class, it's a direct violation of thermodynamical law to claim it's possible for ANYTHING to make an a passive astronomical object warmer than no-atmosphere conditions.
No atmosphere conditions definitionally are the warmest any object can become since radiant-only cooling mode
is the least efficient class cooling mode, in all thermodynamics.
D'oH!!
It's also not predicted that it's going to get warmer in real science, which knows the glaciations and very brief warm periods are caused by circular orbit pattern for Earth (warmth) and by more elliptical periods when glaciation builds. We are in elliptical orbit now, explaining why 99% of all glacial ice on the planet is at record and near record levels now.
Only among the people who told your gullible ass "the gases making 30% less energy warm the planet are making more than 100% energy come out of it by making 30% less warm it, is there any belief whatever the planet can possibly warm.
Furthermore there is no actual warming of the planet by the atmosphere AT ALL, in particular by the cooling GHGs which are responsible for the vast majority of the 29% cooling by the Atmosphere which comprises the very first step in calculation of the temperature of Earth.
The cooling GHGs are shown clearly in all charts to be the ones doing almost all that cooling.
https://goo.gl/aFvg6G
The Atmosphere is a cold light blocking Nitrogen bath, stopping nearly 30% of all sunlight energy from warming the planet
AS THE VERY FIRST STEP in CALCULATION OF IT'S TEMPERATURE.
There's no such thing as gases making 30% less energy warm something, causing more than 100% to come out.
That's why the REAL calculation of the planet's temperature doesn't involve ANY warming by the atmosphere but rather the COOLING necessary when
a sun warmed rock
is immersed in and cooled by a cold light blocking Nitrogen bath.
Warm periods are named Global Climate Optima, end of story. Cold weather creatures that evolve in the 94% of time the planet is in cold glaciation, are driven back during warm Optimum type conditions.
The fakes you believe in, think the gases making nearly 30% less energy warm the Earth are gonna make it hotter than if 100% warmed it
by making the 30% less warm it.
"About 29 percent of the solar energy that arrives at the top of the atmosphere is reflected back to space by clouds, atmospheric particles, or bright ground surfaces like sea ice and snow. This energy plays no role in Earth’s climate system."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance
Just a few paragraphs after explaining to you the cooling GHGs and some dust are stopping 29% of all energy from joining Earth's system they tell you that means that Earth and it's atmosphere only have to account for 71% of total sunlight energy.
"The atmosphere and the surface of the Earth together absorb 71 percent of incoming solar radiation, so together, they must radiate that much energy back to space..."
then a few paragraphs later, they break the big news to you about the Magical Gaissiness what makes makes more energy come out of the planet by making less go into it:
'Effect on Surface Temperature'
The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. "
Since you obviously didn't do well in science class, it's a direct violation of thermodynamical law to claim it's possible for ANYTHING to make an a passive astronomical object warmer than no-atmosphere conditions.
No atmosphere conditions definitionally are the warmest any object can become since radiant-only cooling mode
is the least efficient class cooling mode, in all thermodynamics.
D'oH!!
It's also not predicted that it's going to get warmer in real science, which knows the glaciations and very brief warm periods are caused by circular orbit pattern for Earth (warmth) and by more elliptical periods when glaciation builds. We are in elliptical orbit now, explaining why 99% of all glacial ice on the planet is at record and near record levels now.
Only among the people who told your gullible ass "the gases making 30% less energy warm the planet are making more than 100% energy come out of it by making 30% less warm it, is there any belief whatever the planet can possibly warm.
Furthermore there is no actual warming of the planet by the atmosphere AT ALL, in particular by the cooling GHGs which are responsible for the vast majority of the 29% cooling by the Atmosphere which comprises the very first step in calculation of the temperature of Earth.
The cooling GHGs are shown clearly in all charts to be the ones doing almost all that cooling.
https://goo.gl/aFvg6G
The Atmosphere is a cold light blocking Nitrogen bath, stopping nearly 30% of all sunlight energy from warming the planet
AS THE VERY FIRST STEP in CALCULATION OF IT'S TEMPERATURE.
There's no such thing as gases making 30% less energy warm something, causing more than 100% to come out.
That's why the REAL calculation of the planet's temperature doesn't involve ANY warming by the atmosphere but rather the COOLING necessary when
a sun warmed rock
is immersed in and cooled by a cold light blocking Nitrogen bath.
Last edited:
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
Also there is no such thing as ANY cold period referred to as a ''Global Climate Optimum.'' Ever.
N.ot
O.nce
N.ot
E.ver.
There is no such thing as any warm period which was ever bad for biodiversity on Earth.
94% of all time on Earth in recent history has been spent in
LIFE DESTROYING
GLACIATION.
https://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000 BP.gif
Those tiny, tiny spikes of pink and red are the times when the planet's biodiversity is not severely curtailed by PLANT KILLING COLD.
Warmth brings global biodiversity and the term ''Global Climate Optimum" in real science.
The people who told you magical gas makes more energy come out of Earth by making 30% less energy go in,
also can't even calculate the TEMPERATURE of the SURFACE OF THE PLANET right:
coming up 33 degrees SHORT.
The REAL surface temperature of the planet is 288.15 Kelvin.
https://goo.gl/gtMtih
The real surface temperature of the planet is calculated using GAS LAW.
Your church openly tells you, U.T.T.E.R.L.Y. fraudulently
the temperature of the planet surface is 255 Kelvin:
33 degrees SHORT of the real surface temperature of Earth.
That 33 degree MANDATORY SHORTFALL in their FAKE surface temperature for the Earth comes from
not using gas law
required in SOLVING
ALL gas
mass/energy relationships
Like the ignorant magic gas barking science blighting clown coming up with the wrong answer below:
https://goo.gl/JD8sPF
N.ot
O.nce
N.ot
E.ver.
There is no such thing as any warm period which was ever bad for biodiversity on Earth.
94% of all time on Earth in recent history has been spent in
LIFE DESTROYING
GLACIATION.
https://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000 BP.gif
Those tiny, tiny spikes of pink and red are the times when the planet's biodiversity is not severely curtailed by PLANT KILLING COLD.
Warmth brings global biodiversity and the term ''Global Climate Optimum" in real science.
The people who told you magical gas makes more energy come out of Earth by making 30% less energy go in,
also can't even calculate the TEMPERATURE of the SURFACE OF THE PLANET right:
coming up 33 degrees SHORT.
The REAL surface temperature of the planet is 288.15 Kelvin.
https://goo.gl/gtMtih
The real surface temperature of the planet is calculated using GAS LAW.
Your church openly tells you, U.T.T.E.R.L.Y. fraudulently
the temperature of the planet surface is 255 Kelvin:
33 degrees SHORT of the real surface temperature of Earth.
That 33 degree MANDATORY SHORTFALL in their FAKE surface temperature for the Earth comes from
not using gas law
required in SOLVING
ALL gas
mass/energy relationships
Like the ignorant magic gas barking science blighting clown coming up with the wrong answer below:
https://goo.gl/JD8sPF
Last edited:
I am concerned about where your "science" is coming from....
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
You're concerned about where your ''science'' came from - that got you caught believing the cold light blocking Nitrogen atmospheric bath, is a magic heater.
St. Phatty
Active member
Forest fires have certainly grown in number - because most of them are human caused, and we humans have increased in number.
The un-tended forest fires of yesteryear, tended to be larger. AND, world-wide CO2 supplementation is creating a condition where forest fires have dry fuels as early as May, so, could go either way.
What's also different now is, developers building homes on the edge of large forests and wild areas.
Urban interface wildfires, that is.
Rolling Stone mag had a good article on the subject, focussing on the million acres in the New Jersey pinelands -
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...wildfire-disaster-happen-in-new-jersey-34156/
As cited in the article, and as occurred a few times in 2018, one common cause of fire starts is the US military. They stupidly refuse to stand down on "Red Alert" type days, and continue live fire training when conditions are prime for starting wildfires.
I think the "wildfire statistics" debate is sort of moot. One of the better examples of the need to deal with it, is the death of Martin Gray's family in rural France in the 1950's. He survived World War 2 internment camps, including the Warsaw ghetto, only to lose his family in France in a rural brush fire - long before we fossil fuel users managed to gas up the atmosphere with extra CO2.
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
If you had sense to pour pee out of a boot you'd also be concerned where your science came from, that left you believing the temperature of the planet is 255 Kelvin.
When it's actually 288.15 Kelvin LMAO!
D'oH!
LoL what's it like showing up telling me you thought the planet's on fire,
to have it pointed out to you that - your handler told you the wrong temperature of the planet, he's 33 degrees short of the real temperature!?
D'oH!
RoFLMAO!
When it's actually 288.15 Kelvin LMAO!
D'oH!
LoL what's it like showing up telling me you thought the planet's on fire,
to have it pointed out to you that - your handler told you the wrong temperature of the planet, he's 33 degrees short of the real temperature!?
D'oH!
RoFLMAO!
I'd put my money on this peer reviewed scientific study.
References
Jolly, M. et al, (2015, July 14) Climate-induced variations in global wildfire danger from 1979 to 2013. Nature Communications, (6) 7537.
TychoMonolyth
Boreal Curing
Keep in mind that while we have been putting out every little fire, undergrowth is building up and contributing fuel to super fires.
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
There's no mention of the military being responsible for fires in the article in Rolling Stone.
"Whereas regular fires used to thin out the Pinelands, large swaths have remained relatively untouched for decades due to strict preservation laws.
The result is a giant tinderbox of untended woods that’s surrounded by 100,000-person suburbs.
A Wildfire Risk Assessment published by New Jersey compared the Pinelands to “an inch of gasoline covering all of south and central New Jersey.”
"Whereas regular fires used to thin out the Pinelands, large swaths have remained relatively untouched for decades due to strict preservation laws.
The result is a giant tinderbox of untended woods that’s surrounded by 100,000-person suburbs.
A Wildfire Risk Assessment published by New Jersey compared the Pinelands to “an inch of gasoline covering all of south and central New Jersey.”
Yamaha FG-840
Active member
Peer Review means nothing. It's what got the evidence that pot's like heroin and worse for you than methamphetamines, into court.
In fact Peer Review is often referred to as "Pal Review" and "Political Review" due to the number of trash papers approved all through the Peer Review system's existence.
Peer Review is what brought you the American Medical Association telling you right now: today in 2018 that pot's a dangerous drug so we better all stay on those progressive opioids.
Peer Review is also what brought you the concept of feeding human beings on plant sugar creating the enormous increase in diabetes and other related metabolic-failure problems for Westerners, as well as many mental disorders that crop up from such diets.
Scientifically it's well known the human brain evolved to it's large complexity being fed on ketones, and where they come from, yet for a half century, the criminally corrupt Peer Review system has repeatedly published papers praising the idea of feeding human primates, a predominately plant sugar based diet.
The same peer review system is ALSO the one that recommended to stop managing forests in the first place, removing the preventive maintenance procedures that would make it possible to stop invasive species and parasites from simply moving throughout the biome unopposed.
Finally, Peer Review is the system that has competely flooded the entire world with harmful chemistry in form of the many serious drugs stuffed into people rather than teaching people proper nutrition.
Literally Peer Review is not only, the same system that keeps claiming "pot's dangerous like heroin and worse for one than meth,"
it ALSO approves EVERY single ONE of those endless hard pharmaceutical drugs
being jammed into people from the time they're born.
AND it's shamelessly ruined the West's metabolic health profile by suggesting human primates be fed mostly plant sugars.
Saying "I believe in the Peer Review" as an argument is like saying "I believe the DEA, they're specialists.''
Because the 'Peer Review' system is exactly that. Political Review.
In fact Peer Review is often referred to as "Pal Review" and "Political Review" due to the number of trash papers approved all through the Peer Review system's existence.
Peer Review is what brought you the American Medical Association telling you right now: today in 2018 that pot's a dangerous drug so we better all stay on those progressive opioids.
Peer Review is also what brought you the concept of feeding human beings on plant sugar creating the enormous increase in diabetes and other related metabolic-failure problems for Westerners, as well as many mental disorders that crop up from such diets.
Scientifically it's well known the human brain evolved to it's large complexity being fed on ketones, and where they come from, yet for a half century, the criminally corrupt Peer Review system has repeatedly published papers praising the idea of feeding human primates, a predominately plant sugar based diet.
The same peer review system is ALSO the one that recommended to stop managing forests in the first place, removing the preventive maintenance procedures that would make it possible to stop invasive species and parasites from simply moving throughout the biome unopposed.
Finally, Peer Review is the system that has competely flooded the entire world with harmful chemistry in form of the many serious drugs stuffed into people rather than teaching people proper nutrition.
Literally Peer Review is not only, the same system that keeps claiming "pot's dangerous like heroin and worse for one than meth,"
it ALSO approves EVERY single ONE of those endless hard pharmaceutical drugs
being jammed into people from the time they're born.
AND it's shamelessly ruined the West's metabolic health profile by suggesting human primates be fed mostly plant sugars.
Saying "I believe in the Peer Review" as an argument is like saying "I believe the DEA, they're specialists.''
Because the 'Peer Review' system is exactly that. Political Review.
