RustyShackleford said:ckdeuce said:RustyShackleford said:
Oh my... Snow in Chicago this weekend. First time in history this early. Oh...... And if YOU believe it is man made, then...... It is your fault!! Thanks for screwing me and my 3 year old child over with your coal soot!! Just kidding, I don't believe in "Man Made" global warming. I also trust in God. I also think man walked on the moon. Oh... God Bless.
Chris
Chris, I don't want to rain on your parade, I think you're going down the wrong street. Too many scientists are saying what they are being paid to say. The liberals in academia are also saying what they are being paid to say. It's always a smaller number who are willing to be honest enough to put their careers on the line by speaking their minds. Global warming is nothing other than a power and money grab. There's a lot of money to be made with this. You believe that majority = truth? Wow, you need to start thinking for yourself. What about the "majority" that were operating in Germany during WWII? This is a scheme to feed cash to liberals and their causes. Take a look at this article where the BBC asks the question: What happened to global warming? They are honest enough to report that we have been in a cooling cycle since 1998. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm You can even see that the global warming crowd is realizing that their farce is under risk, so they had to change the name to "Climate Change." Global warming, aka, "climate change" is a system of intimidation and manipulation. Manipulating and obscuring the data and intimidating those who disagree.
burning pine??
- Thread starter ckarotka
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
- Status
ControlFreak said:
I'm talking about a majority of reputable scientists.
Ok, when all else fails, time to trot out the L word; yes, it wouldn't surprise me if the "green" industries WERE predominantly
controlled by Democratic-leaning people. You would prefer the business-as-usual approach of feeding cash to our enemies
in the Middle East. I am not surprised. We have been seeing how hatred of political opponents trumps love of country for
many on the right.
Global warming, climate change - call it what you will - is frightening indeed. But denial is a cowardly response. Cowardice is not what
our country needs right now, not with all the problems we face.
ControlFreak said:RustyShackleford said:ckdeuce said:RustyShackleford said:
Oh my... Snow in Chicago this weekend. First time in history this early. Oh...... And if YOU believe it is man made, then...... It is your fault
Chris
Chris, I don't want to rain on your parade, but too many scientists are saying what they are being paid to say. The liberals in academia are also saying what they are being paid to say. It's always a smaller number who are willing to be honest enough to put their careers on the line by speaking their minds. Global warming is nothing other than a power and money grab. There's a lot of money to be made with this. You believe that majority = truth? Wow, you need to start thinking for yourself. What about the "majority" that were operating in Germany during WWII? This is a scheme to feed cash to liberals and their causes. Take a look at this article where the BBC asks the question: What happened to global warming? They are honest enough to report that we have been in a cooling cycle since 1998. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm You can even see that the global warming crowd is realizing that their farce is under risk, so they had to change the name to "Climate Change." Global warming, aka, "climate change" is a system of intimidation and manipulation. Manipulating and obscuring the data and intimidating those who disagree.
Wooo Man. We are on the smae side here. You have to start from the begining..... I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. I think it is a hoax and a $$$$ Grab as well. Go back and read what I said, and you will see. We are on this one together my friend.
Burned a huge hemlock one year in my old Jotul, cut and split it and let it dry for a good year,
Burned it mixed with hard wood no problems,
Was great for burning with door open and screen in place for a "popping" and crackling blaze.
Burned it mixed with hard wood no problems,
Was great for burning with door open and screen in place for a "popping" and crackling blaze.
RustyShackleford said:
My apologies to ckdeuce.
Are these scientists reputable? It seems that scientists are deemed reputable only when they agree with Climate Change.
Scientists Rebut Claim That Man Causes Climate Change
Monday, October 12, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
Fred Singer, founder and chairman of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, holds up a book "Climate Change Reconsidered" that contains hundreds of scientific studies that dispute global warming and CO2 as a pollutant that causes global warming. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
(CNSNews.com) – As the world focused on President Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a small group of determined scientists gathered in a Senate office building to present evidence backing their claim that climate change is caused not by man but by nature, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but the hope for a greener planet.
John Kwapisz, organizer and moderator at the panel discussion, recalled Obama’s speech at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, Pa., last month as a way of illustrating the dramatic tone used by those who embrace global warming as a dire and eminent threat.
“That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing,” Obama said on Sept. 22 at the summit. “Our generation's response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it -- boldly, swiftly, and together – we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.”
“No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline,” Obama said. “More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.”
“On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees,” he said. “The security and stability of each nation and all peoples – our prosperity, our health, and our safety – are in jeopardy. And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.”
The scientists said they were on Capitol Hill to challenge the president’s claims and show that Mother Nature controls climate around the world and that CO2 in the atmosphere benefits people, plants and animals.
“Nature, not human activity rules the planet,” said Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist and research professor at George Mason University and professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. “And once you’ve decided that on the basis of evidence, then everything else falls into place.”
“A lot of the problems that President Obama seems to be concerned about are no longer a concern,” Singer said.
H. Leighton Steward holds up his book as he speaks to a crowd on Capitol Hill about the benefits of CO2 to the planet, people, plants and animals. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)
“When there’s more carbon dioxide put into the air, the plants respond in an astonishing fashion,” said H. Leighton Steward, geologist, environmentalist, author and founder of the Web site plantsneedco2.org.
Steward said that since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in 1860, the amount of CO2 put into the air has increased average plant growth by 12 percent and average tree growth by 18 percent around the world.
“So if we want to green the earth,” Steward said, “we need to put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It’s the earth’s greatest airborne fertilizer.”
“If we want the ecosystems and the habitats to be more robust and hold more animal life, more plant life, we need to put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” Steward said, adding that proponents of man-made global warming have given CO2 a bad name.
“It’s now being looked at and called a pollutant. I can tell you, I’ve asked every scientist that I’ve ever run into, chemical expert,” Steward said. “There is not one, I repeat, not one instance in which carbon dioxide is a pollutant.”
Roy W. Spencer, researcher at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, author, and a former senior scientist at NASA, presented his research on natural global warming and cooling, including the role that cloud cover and the sun play in the changes of the earth’s climate.
The full article is here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55278
I think that any further discussion on global warming should be moved to a different thread if you want to continue. The moderators are going to jump in and say that the thread is being hijacked since this has nothing to do with burning pine. As for me, I've said my piece, so this is my last post in this thread.
- Jul 19, 2006
- 306
Enjoy 
Minnesotans For Global Warming Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM&feature=related
Minnesotans For Global Warming Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM&feature=related
ControlFreak said:
On thing we CAN agree upon.
The last thing I'll say here is that MAYBE you are correct (that global warming is a hoax, or
whatever) - I sure as heck HOPE you are correct, because we are in such deep trouble if not.
I wonder, are you willing to admit that the global warming crowd may be correct ? If so, if
there's a possibility that this climate change may be for real, doesn't it make sense to maybe
think about how to do something about it ?!?
RustyShackleford said:
I can't speak on behalf of ControlFreak...... But, I think it is arrogant to think that MAN could destory what God has created. I believe in Climate Change, I DON'T BELIEVE that we are or could cause it. It's about 45 outside tomorrow, that will change and it might make 50 tomorrow........
God created better than 6 million folks that MAN murdered in the 30s and 40s. Gee, I forgot. Man cannot destroy anything God created. Darn. I'm a moron.
Pine logs are fun to burn,
Get back oak - it's not your turn,
Perfect for the shoulder season,
Don't blast you out is the reason.
Get back oak - it's not your turn,
Perfect for the shoulder season,
Don't blast you out is the reason.
You're not alone. I was with you the whole way. Although we are a family in this forum, when we step out of the boundaries of wood fire speak, there are conscious brothers and unconscious brothers. Thanks for speaking up.
I enjoy a split of Pine wood mixed in with a split of Cherry,a split of oak, and a dash of Black Locust on a cold winters evening. (nose in the air) :long:
I've got so much hardwood, I don't see a reason to consider burning pine.
Tons of cedar too, I use that for kindling, because I can stack a stash
inside the house - that way, it dries out really well - without worrying
about insect infestation.
Tons of cedar too, I use that for kindling, because I can stack a stash
inside the house - that way, it dries out really well - without worrying
about insect infestation.
As I gather, the general reflection is that pine burns to fast, and hot. So lets see, I fell 'em, buck 'em, load 'em in a trailer, drive 35+ miles with 'em, split 'em up, stack 'em up, move 'em into the house, load 'em into the stove, and in return they heat my house and save me lotsa money. But I should probably just let them rot in the forest, cause burning pine requires to much re-loading? he11, if I wanted to take the lazy way out then I'd just flip the switch, burn oil/propane. There's global warming. I think anyways, or maybe i dont belive in global warming. Heck i cant remeber anymore, spend to much time loading my "fire pit" with pine.
RustyShackleford said:SteveKG said:
I thought I was the only one ...
Murdered and destroyed are not the same. But I get your point.
ckdeuce said:RustyShackleford said:SteveKG said:
I thought I was the only one ...
Murdered and destroyed are not the same. But I get your point.
Ummmmm, Spruce anyone
:zip:
north of 60 said:ckdeuce said:RustyShackleford said:SteveKG said:
I thought I was the only one ...
Murdered and destroyed are not the same. But I get your point.
Ummmmm, Spruce anyone
No thanks, but I will take a refill on the white oak please.
I just christened a brand new Morso 1440 with pine on Sunday. I packed it chock a block full with pine and let it rip. Must have been several ounces of wood in that wee little firebox. I cleaned newly installed chimney twice already since then, removing a 5 gal pail of creosote with the aid of a jackhammer each time. But the smell of the pine burning and the paint curing was to die for. The paint that Morso uses emits a yummy hint of asphalt as it first warms up. Far better smell than the Englander paint - Sorry Mike.
When we lived out West all we burned was pine for heat in our wood stoves. You will use more wood to heat your home than if your burned hard wood, but it still heats great. That was our primary source of heat and still is for my in-laws. The only thing we did was have our chimney cleaned and inspected every year, (which you should do any way).
Hope this helps
Bob
Hope this helps
Bob
- Status
Similar threads
