GINA COBB

Green Commies Caused Santa Barbara Wildfires

By DemocracyRules

Commies are constantly at war with processes that are natural and self-sustaining.  In California, legions of Green Commies  forbid the clearance of underbrush.  They have delusions about what nature really is, and they want to ensure that things are "pristine" and "undisturbed."  But they are the ones who are "disturbed." In fact what they are doing is crazy.

(1) Southern California is near-desert, and it's prone to wildfires. It has been this way for thousands of years.  It's not going to change just because some green commies pass "laws" against fires.

(2) The ecology has a feedback system which maintains the equilibrium. Large parts of Southern California isn't really forest, because it's too dry for that. A lot of it is chaparral, which is a mix of short and medium-tall grasses and bushes. Some are short-lived while others are long-lived.  Droughts are frequent, and as some plants die, they leave dead vegetation behind. New rains bring renewal, and new growth. Some species die of old age after a few years. They add to the deadwood. Amongst these are long-lived dwarf tress and shrubs. The chaparral hosts many animal species.

(3) With no ground fires, the dead ground-cover builds up, so new plants can't sprout. The smaller tress and brush don't do very well either. So after a few decades, most of the ground cover is dead, with some long-lived taller tress sticking out of this mess. Environmentalists have declared that this dysfunctional and doomed ecosystem is "natural" and "pristine".

(4) Normally, every 10 to 100 years, brush fires burn through the hills and clear out most of the undergrowth. These fires are fast-moving, and not very hot, because there is not much stuff to burn. The fires make room for regrowth.

(5) The green commies prevent brush clearance and controlled burns. They get firefighters to put out all fires. After awhile, most of the chaparral is dead, looks horrible, and doesn't support much wildlife. The green commies blame global warming.

(6) Eventually a wildfire burns out of control, and causes huge devastation, because dead vegetation is abundant, and the fires create tremendous heat. This causes massive fire winds which throw sparks all over. Also, the long-lived species die from the intense heat.

(7) People die, homes are destroyed, wildlife is devastated, and the chaparral ecosystem is set back to square one. When rains eventually come, they cause soil erosion and landslides because the chaparral has been obliterated.

(8) You may notice the green commies keep quiet during these fires. Perhaps someone will figure out where the devastation comes from.  But later they pass more "laws" against nature.

(9) The obvious solution is to authorize home owners to clear brush around their buildings, and for fire experts to conduct controlled burns when it's safe to do so.  Also, some of the chaparral could be harvested for commercial uses.

(10) But ohh, no, the Green Commies can't have any commonsense intruding into their crazy fantasies about what "pristine" and "natural" actually means.

For Green Commies,"Bambi" is real.

Pro Patria

A Jet That Runs on Algae: Another Small Step Toward the End of the Global Jihad

An experimental test of a jet that runs partially on algae fuel was a success.  There will be bugs to work out, but, hey, it's amazing that it works at all.

A US airline has completed the first test flight of a plane partly powered by biofuel derived from algae.

The 90-minute flight by a Continental Boeing 737-800 went better than expected, a spokesperson said.

One of its engines was powered by a 50-50 blend of biofuel and normal aircraft fuel.

Wednesday's test is the latest in a series of demonstration flights by the aviation industry, which hopes to be using biofuels within five years.

The flight was the first by a US carrier to use an alternative fuel source, and the first in the world to use a twin-engine commercial aircraft (rather than a four-engine plane) to test a biofuel blend.

Allow me to take a big, gigantic logical leap here and tell you why you should care.

You should care not because biofuels may reduce carbon emissions and save the planet from global warming.

There's no harm in reducing emissions through private industry as opposed to clumsy, innovation-stifling government mandates, but that's not the greatest need right now.

Our greatest need on Earth today is to de-fund the global Islamic jihad that kills literally hundreds of innocent men, women and children around the world every week. 

As long as Islamic Arab nations are raking in hundreds of billions of dollars from oil sales, the funding of the Islamofascist industry of death will continue to be virtually unlimited.

We do need alternative fuels, and the sooner private industry can develop viable alternatives to oil and gas, the better.

 

Dog Survives Wolf Pack Attack

By DemocracyRules

Gee, I guess the real world isn’t exactly the way Walt Disney described it.  And PETA said wild animals are cute and harmless!

But if 8 or 10 timber wolves start to eat your dog, you’ll have to handle it the Canadian way.  Beat the heck out of the wolves.  It didn’t even occur to this guy that attacking a wolf pack with his bare hands might not turn out too well.  But he saved his dog’s life.  The wolves would have killed the dog in seconds.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dog Survives Wolf Pack Attack

By Grant Warkentin - Campbell River Mirror, Dec 10, 2008

Toco is lucky to be alive after surviving a wolf pack attack on Cortes Island, British Columbia.  Toco is an eight-year-old husky-cross. He was outside with his owner Mike Christian Thursday morning while Christian did some yard work.

"It was about 10 a.m.," Christian said. "I was just out doing some pruning on the trees."  Working up in the branches, Christian saw Toco trot up the road, bark at something, then come back to the yard. He lost sight of him after that.

"About five minutes later, the wolves came out of the bush.they didn't seem to be chasing anything," Christian said.  Then he heard Toco yelp. Christian scrambled out of the tree and ran towards the sound. About 30 metres away, he saw between eight and 10 wolves attacking Toco.

"I came screaming at them, yelling at them," he said. "I guess just running straight at them, yelling, scared them off."  Toco was left standing, but badly hurt. Christian took him inside to let him rest and that afternoon took the two ferries from Cortes Island to Campbell River to bring the dog to the Dogwood Veterinary Hospital. Veterinarian Darryl Gjertsen patched up Toco's wounds after stabilizing the dog overnight.

photo: Timber Wolves -- business is business

"We've been working on this dog for two hours," he said Friday morning, finishing implanting temporary tubes in Toco's neck to help fluid from muscle damage drain. "He's done very well, he's come out of surgery really well."

******Vet Video Here*********

Toco was fortunate the wolves were not able to crush his windpipe or sever any major blood vessels. The dog's injuries were severe, but he was standing and walking around by Monday morning. Christian picked him up Monday afternoon.  "He was quite alert on the ride home," Christian said.

The experience hasn't put him off going for walks with his dog, although he'll be a bit more prepared in the future - and carry a big stick.  He also expects Toco will stick close to his side from now on.

After living on Cortes Island for 35 years, Christian said he's heard a lot of stories about wolves and attacks on Quadra and Cortes Islands, and has seen the animals on numerous occasions. However, he said it was unusual to see wolves behave so boldly in the middle of the morning.

"With that many of them together, I guess they were hungry," he said.  Christian thinks some of the Cortes Island wolves have migrated from Merry Island on the Sunshine Coast.  "They swim from island to island," he said. "I've seen at least one of them swimming. They're awesome swimmers, actually."

Christian said the wolves normally hunt deer and otters on the islands' beaches.

Only You Can Prevent Green Communism!

By DemocracyRules

h/t Steven Milloy,  JunkScience.com,  Data on file

"Our forests are detonating like napalm bombs. We need to remove dead and dying bug-killed timber," said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif, in August 1994.   Rep. Herger demanded Congress declare a state of emergency in federal forests to permit quick removal of dead trees, fallen branches and other debris that fuels fires.

In hindsight, Rep. Herger was right.  Wildfires continue to be a serious problem in California and elsewhere because of strict limits on the removal of flammable undergrowth and tall grasses.  In 2002, wildfires burned about 7 million acres, killed 23 firefighters, destroyed more than 800 homes and cost taxpayers more than $1.5 billion.  In 2003, over 700,000 acres burned in California alone, 20 people died and 2,600 homes were destroyed.

In 1994 the “Natural Resources Defense Council”, called Rep. Herger's statement "a pretext for accelerated logging in the Sierra Nevada."  When President Bush proposed a plan to prevent forest fires by thinning excess growth, the same group called it "a Trojan horse" for sneaking through logging projects.  Environmentalists and their political allies in Congress are obsessed with trying to preserve forest in their “natural state,” but they lack an understanding of what that is.

Before humans arrived, fires often swept through North American forests.  Undergrowth was burned away, the biggest trees survived, and wildlife proliferated in the clearings.  Large mammals like deer and bears don’t thrive in old growth forests. Undergrowth impairs free movement, and sunlight is blocked out by the forest canopy, so most of the undergrowth is dead.   This leaves little to eat for deer and other herbivores. When deer and other herbivores disappear, bears, wolves and cougars also disappear.  In other words, fairy-tale forests are quite dead, and they are so choked with undergrowth that environmentalists seldom go there.  Unless of course, “nature trails” and rest rooms are provided.

Thinning forests is more effective over the long-term than fighting forest fires every year.    For example, a fire in Idaho, Montana and Washington in 1910 burned 3 million acres.  After that the federal government spent more money to fight forest fires.  But the forests became overgrown with trees and vegetation, and when fires started they were more devastating.

When the undergrowth is thin, fires tend to jump from tree-top to tree-top, defoliating but not killing the biggest trees. With thick undergrowth, when a fire starts it burns hotter as it spreads through the undergrowth.  These super-hot fires cause more death amongst old and mature trees.

Dr. Leon Neuenschwander, University of Idaho forestry expert noted that "Flames are 90 feet tall instead of 3 feet tall."

In 2003, U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth said, "We need to do some active management to prevent unnatural fire" that occurs as a result of dense underbrush and trees built up over decades. "If that means cutting a 14-foot Sequoia [giant redwood], that's reasonable [to] prevent fire."  Environmentalists make fires worse by opposing thinning and pushing for more fire control. 

President Bush urged legislation in May 2002. He said, "For too many years, bureaucratic tangles and bad forest policy have prevented foresters from keeping our woodlands healthy and safe... This year's fire outlook seems less severe, and that's good news... Yet the danger persists, and many of our forests are facing a higher-than-normal risk of costly and catastrophic fires."

The bill was designed to prevent the spread of forest fires, with the added benefit of helping the timber industry.  The bill protected old growth forests from clear-cutting, but I doubt the environmentalists flocked to those areas to clear undergrowth.  No Starbucks nearby.

Pro Patria

Bear Visits Coffee Shop, Service Too Slow, Leaves

By DemocracyRules

h/t bclocalnews.com

This happened in Kitmat B.C., which is surrounded by forest.  The black bear gave a restaurant worker the scare of her life when it wandered into the Kitimat Subway shortly after it opened for business at 6:00 a.m.

Rebecca Branton heard the door buzzer as she worked in the back.  The bear came in by the front doors via the parking lot, just like any other customer. He apparently didn’t see the sign that said, “no shirt, no shoes, no service”. He was caught by the security cam, standing up near the deli bar, as if he was waiting to be served. The coffee was probably not ready yet. 

Once Rebecca saw the bear, she locked herself in the bathroom for safety and called her parents and RCMP on her cell phone.  The bear then pooped on the floor, maybe because he saw the bathroom was busy.  Then he wandered around, but he didn’t seem to want any chips or snacks for breakfast.

Rebecca’s parents and the RCMP arrived shortly afterward, but the coffee was still not ready.  Then the bear left.  Maybe he didn’t like line-ups.  Anyway by that time the police were yelling at him. 

Conservation officers later located the bear and destroyed it.  Shouldn’t have pooped on the floor.

Pro Patria

Love Story: Knut Mourns His Keeper

By DemocracyRules

Yes, there is no doubt that Polar Bear cubs are very cute.  But these doting stories forget that an adult Polar Bear can and will remove your head with one swat.  Business is business and they have to eat -- a lot.

Let's not get too Disney-esque about this.  The Green Commies use these stories to ride rough-shod over environmental reality.

Pro Patria

Grizzly Bear Bounces Back From Non-Endangerment

By DemocracyRules

This is mainly going on in Montana. Well, environmentalists THOUGHT (or perhaps hoped) the Grizzly was endangered.  Then those pesky scientists stepped in and COUNTED them:

"This is two and a half times the number of bears previously estimated," said Katherine Kendall, the lead researcher, who said the results speak for themselves. "There is no evidence that the population size was ever severely reduced..."

This report has the MSM panicking, somehow trying to blame it on McCain (???).  More bad news for the GREEN COMMIES -- with no endangered species to worry about, Montana can resume drilling for oil [blub].

Pro Patria

Yikes, Here Comes Ike!

By DemocracyRules

It's The $5 Gas, Stupid

By DemocracyRules

h/t  Dan Haley, Denver Post

It could just come down to this.   

$4 and $5 gas is on everyone's mind and it won't go away anytime soon. Republicans have the best strategy for dealing with the problem. It's not just the high prices, it's the fact that the extra money is going to feed a bunch of Islamist nut jobs who want to kill us.

High fuel prices wind up being 'impounded' in everything we buy.  Everything from baby food to legal briefs have an energy component embedded in the price.  If gas prices go up, the extra costs must be passed onto the consumer.  Inflation is inevitable, because people have to pay more to buy the same things.

The USA is not as bad off as many other countries.  High oil costs bring more revenue to American petroleum producers, and it also enriches the Canada-USA oil partnership, from which both parties benefit.

But the pain and frustration is real, and the resentment of  the Arabs is real.  The high oil prices are caused by the Arabs.  It costs the Saudis about $5 to extract a barrel of oil, and they have enough reserves to supply world demand for decades.

The Dems blame Bush but that's obvious crap. The Dems have obviously strangled American attempts to achieve energy self-sufficiency.  They have opposed offshore drilling, oil shale extraction, nuclear power, clean coal, clean diesel, conversion of coal to gasoline, conversion of coal to methanol, cellulosic alcohol, and on and on and on.

They have even opposed hydro power because some tiny snail darter fish might be harmed.

More than 70% of American want to drill now, and the Dems refuse to comply.  This is the best opportunity the common-sense majority has ever had to remove the Dems from power.

Pro Patria

Organization of 50,000 Physicists Agrees: NO Consensus on Global Warming

Here's the news, hot off the wires:

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.  The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.  The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling.   A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

But - but - but -- what about all the radical lifestyle changes we're all going to have to make just to survive?

What about all the expensive laws we're in the process of enacting? 

What about THE ENTIRE AGENDA?

Now scientists are going to have to re-open the entire debate on global warming?

What are politicians going to do in the meantime?  Will they have to put all their economy-killing laws on hold?

Facts can be so inconvenient.

One Year Ago Today on GINA COBB: Pardon Me for Living!

Originally published on July 4, 2007:  Pardon Me for Living!

This has to be one of the most preposterous bits of tripe I've ever read:

Human greed takes lion's share of solar energy

HUMANS are just one of the millions of species on Earth, but we use up almost a quarter of the sun's energy captured by plants - the most of any species.

The human dominance of this natural resource is affecting other species, reducing the amount of energy available to them by almost 10 per cent, scientists report.

Researchers said the findings showed humans were using "a remarkable share" of the earth's plant productivity "to meet the needs and wants of one species".

They also warned that the increased use of biofuels - such as ethanol and canola - should be viewed cautiously, given the potential for further pressure on ecosystems.

The scientists, from Austria and Germany, who publish their results today in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analysed data on land use, agriculture and forestry from 161 countries, representing 97 per cent of the world's land mass.   . . . .

An agriculture professor at the University of Melbourne, Snow Barlow, said the paper showed humans were taking up too much of an important natural resource.

"Here we are, just one species on the earth, and we're grabbing a quarter of the renewable resources … we're probably being a bit greedy."

Let me get this straight.  Professor Barlow's complaint is that humans are using too much of the sun's energy as captured by plants -- a RENEWABLE resource.

Wouldn't that suggest a logical solution, assuming there's a problem at all?  Couldn't we just -- call me crazy -- renew the renewable resource?  In fact, isn't that what farmers do every day?

But by all means let's jump straight to the (cough) logical conclusion that humans are being "greedy."

I've got a news flash for agriculture professor Barlow:  Humans also breathe in copious amounts of air, use vastly disproportionate quantities of the earth's water to bathe and grow lawns, and read virtually 100% of the books, newspapers, and journals of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  Humans also hoard almost 100% of the earth's cars, airplanes, money and iPhones!

Is that greedy?  I guess so, if you ask Professor Barlow.  But the entire argument reeks of fallacious reasoning.  It starts with the claim that humans are simply one of the earth's "millions of species."  Well, yes, but most of those "millions of species" are things like beetles, insects, fungi, plankton and microbes.  No, humans don't live as modestly and unobtrusively as chipmunks or sea urchins, nor are they intended to.

Unlike the other millions of species on earth, humans have minds, hearts, consciences, and immortal souls.  If humans are using a relatively high percentage of the earth's solar energy resources, it's because we have good reason.  Chimps and dolphins may be intelligent creatures, but they're not designing solar panels, growing food crops, or sending probes to Mars.

Someday when an asteroid is headed straight for earth, whose job do you think it will it be to figure out how to save us all? 

Don't count on the narwhals.  Their schools don't even cover astronomy. 

So I'm human.

I'm a solar energy user.

That used to be considered a good thing.  Now I'm supposed to figure out how to get energy without using any nonrenewable resources, and without using renewable resources either.

Pardon me for living.  Unlike the gnats outside my window, i've got work to do.

Originally published on July 4, 2007:  Pardon Me for Living!

This has to be one of the most preposterous bits of tripe I've ever read:

Human greed takes lion's share of solar energy

HUMANS are just one of the millions of species on Earth, but we use up almost a quarter of the sun's energy captured by plants - the most of any species.

The human dominance of this natural resource is affecting other species, reducing the amount of energy available to them by almost 10 per cent, scientists report.

Researchers said the findings showed humans were using "a remarkable share" of the earth's plant productivity "to meet the needs and wants of one species".

They also warned that the increased use of biofuels - such as ethanol and canola - should be viewed cautiously, given the potential for further pressure on ecosystems.

The scientists, from Austria and Germany, who publish their results today in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analysed data on land use, agriculture and forestry from 161 countries, representing 97 per cent of the world's land mass.   . . . .

An agriculture professor at the University of Melbourne, Snow Barlow, said the paper showed humans were taking up too much of an important natural resource.

"Here we are, just one species on the earth, and we're grabbing a quarter of the renewable resources … we're probably being a bit greedy."

Let me get this straight.  Professor Barlow's complaint is that humans are using too much of the sun's energy as captured by plants -- a RENEWABLE resource.

Wouldn't that suggest a logical solution, assuming there's a problem at all?  Couldn't we just -- call me crazy -- renew the renewable resource?  In fact, isn't that what farmers do every day?

But by all means let's jump straight to the (cough) logical conclusion that humans are being "greedy."

I've got a news flash for agriculture professor Barlow:  Humans also breathe in copious amounts of air, use vastly disproportionate quantities of the earth's water to bathe and grow lawns, and read virtually 100% of the books, newspapers, and journals of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  Humans also hoard almost 100% of the earth's cars, airplanes, money and iPhones!

Is that greedy?  I guess so, if you ask Professor Barlow.  But the entire argument reeks of fallacious reasoning.  It starts with the claim that humans are simply one of the earth's "millions of species."  Well, yes, but most of those "millions of species" are things like beetles, insects, fungi, plankton and microbes.  No, humans don't live as modestly and unobtrusively as chipmunks or sea urchins, nor are they intended to.

Unlike the other millions of species on earth, humans have minds, hearts, consciences, and immortal souls.  If humans are using a relatively high percentage of the earth's solar energy resources, it's because we have good reason.  Chimps and dolphins may be intelligent creatures, but they're not designing solar panels, growing food crops, or sending probes to Mars.

Someday when an asteroid is headed straight for earth, whose job do you think it will it be to figure out how to save us all? 

Don't count on the narwhals.  Their schools don't even cover astronomy. 

So I'm human.

I'm a solar energy user.

That used to be considered a good thing.  Now I'm supposed to figure out how to get energy without using any nonrenewable resources, and without using renewable resources either.

Pardon me for living.  Unlike the gnats outside my window, i've got work to do.

The Environmentalists Have a Clear Plan

By DemocracyRules