Pine trees outgas more hydrocarbons than cars do although they are simple > chains and don't contain lead, sulfur or mercury. And when they burn > (they are genetically designed to thrive on forest fires (the small normal > ones that nature provides but we have stopped. The buildup of undergrowth > due to our stopping the forest fires has caused conditions that mean much > higher temps and the trees die)) they also put out massive amounts of carbon > dioxide and complex hydrocarbons when they burn. >

Jeff Rigby wrote:> > Pine trees outgas more hydrocarbons than cars do although they are

Yep.>

That's why hundreds of years ago, before we had automobiles & smokestack> factories & fossil fueled power plants that clean up the atmosphere,> planet Earth was so polluted from all the trees that it could barely> support life.>

DSK

Good grief, Jeff...reads like you are reposting from the Bush's "screw> the environment briefing book.">

Trees are bad, cars are good, and if we don't cut down all the forests> so the loggers can turn a buck, why, disaster will follow in short order.>

And Harry, the "pilotless drone" as you call him has not spouted any anti> environment rehtoric but has advocated a rational reasonable course for this> country. This is a much admired policy by those of us on the right and> center.

Harry you knee jerk react to anything that's said here. Is this an attempt> to flame the news group, is it a thought out policy on your part? I have a> hard time beliving that you really believe most of your posts as some of> them have shown that you do have a mind.

Jeff Rigby wrote:>> That's why the Great smoky mountains were called smoky by the Indians >> 200+>> years ago.>>

Note the difference between "smoke" and "fog.">

It's not quite as difficult as the difference between "diplomacy" and > "coercion.">