Climate Change and forestry in Canada


beaker
+1
#1
This is a study concerning the impact of climate changes on Canadas forestry industry and the environment of the forests. The full report is available at.... From the folks at Natural Resources Canada.

www.nofc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/book...pdfs/29616.pdf (external - login to view)

"Climate change is already affecting Canada’s forests. Current visible effects include
changes in the frequency and severity of disturbances (such as fires, drought, severe
storms, and damaging insect and disease attacks): other less visible changes such as
change in the timing of spring bud burst are also underway. One of the consequences of
future climate change will be further increases in the frequency and severity of extreme
weather events and disturbances. Changes in productivity, species composition, and
age- class distribution are also expected."

"Climatically suitable habitats for most species will move northward and will
increase in elevation but the actual movement of species will lag behind the rate of
movement of climatic niches. Climate change has implications for both current and future
timber supply. The net impact of climate change on timber supply will vary from location
to location. The recent mountain pine beetle event shows that climate-related factors can
have dramatic effects on timber supply in a relatively short time period. Climate change
will impact harvest operations."

"The magnitudes of change in climate that will be faced by Canada’s forests and forest
management sector and the consequent scale of expected impacts have no historical
analogue. Canada’s forest sector will need to adapt and it will need to do so without the
benefit of prior experience. Forest managers can expect the unexpected and they can
expect that change will be ongoing and unrelenting."

"
 
taxslave
+2
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

This is a study concerning the impact of climate changes on Canadas forestry industry and the environment of the forests. The full report is available at.... From the folks at Natural Resources Canada.

www.nofc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/book...pdfs/29616.pdf (external - login to view)

"Climate change is already affecting Canada’s forests. Current visible effects include
changes in the frequency and severity of disturbances (such as fires, drought, severe
storms, and damaging insect and disease attacks): other less visible changes such as
change in the timing of spring bud burst are also underway. One of the consequences of
future climate change will be further increases in the frequency and severity of extreme
weather events and disturbances. Changes in productivity, species composition, and
age- class distribution are also expected."

"Climatically suitable habitats for most species will move northward and will
increase in elevation but the actual movement of species will lag behind the rate of
movement of climatic niches. Climate change has implications for both current and future
timber supply. The net impact of climate change on timber supply will vary from location
to location. The recent mountain pine beetle event shows that climate-related factors can
have dramatic effects on timber supply in a relatively short time period. Climate change
will impact harvest operations."

"The magnitudes of change in climate that will be faced by Canada’s forests and forest
management sector and the consequent scale of expected impacts have no historical
analogue. Canada’s forest sector will need to adapt and it will need to do so without the
benefit of prior experience. Forest managers can expect the unexpected and they can
expect that change will be ongoing and unrelenting."

"

SO we get longer harvesting season and can harvest farther north. I see no problem with that. Loggers are good at adapting to natural changes. It is the political induced changes that create problems.
 
beaker
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

SO we get longer harvesting season and can harvest farther north. I see no problem with that. Loggers are good at adapting to natural changes. It is the political induced changes that create problems.

Try reading that small portion that I quoted, or better yet try to read at least the executive summary of the report, and if your interest is widened by that try reading the report and see if your opinion changes. Or don't. If you can't bear to have your present mindset changed though all around you are changing theirs.

A little more from the study,,,

"Nevertheless, forest companies are already beginning to experience some impacts that
may be related to climate change (e.g., a shorter winter-harvest season and the expansion
of the mountain pine beetle’s range). Moreover, the long growth cycles of trees put forest
management in a unique position in terms of the need to include climate change
considerations in current planning and decision making. Thus, consideration of climate
change is not something that should be deferred in the forest sector.
There are a number of areas in which future climate change has important implications for
current forest management. These are itemized as follows:
• There is a need to incorporate climate change into growth and yield forecasts.
• There is a need to incorporate climate change into long-term timber supply
analysis and forest management planning.
• There is a need to incorporate climate change into reforestation choices.
• There is a need to consider climate change in identifying protection program
requirements and in specific types of adaptations, such as reducing
vulnerability by managing landscape configurations (e.g., “fire-smart”
landscapes, insect-proofed landscapes).
• There is a need to incorporate climate change considerations into sustainable
forest management objectives and into the practices that forest managers use
or may use to achieve modified objectives.
A cumulative effects approach may, in some cases, be needed to determine appropriate
actions. For example, some areas will be subject to increased risk of both drought and fire
and therefore a shift in species composition toward more jack pine could provide multiple
benefits.
 
taxslave
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

Try reading that small portion that I quoted, or better yet try to read at least the executive summary of the report, and if your interest is widened by that try reading the report and see if your opinion changes. Or don't. If you can't bear to have your present mindset changed though all around you are changing theirs.

A little more from the study,,,

"Nevertheless, forest companies are already beginning to experience some impacts that
may be related to climate change (e.g., a shorter winter-harvest season and the expansion
of the mountain pine beetle’s range). Moreover, the long growth cycles of trees put forest
management in a unique position in terms of the need to include climate change
considerations in current planning and decision making. Thus, consideration of climate
change is not something that should be deferred in the forest sector.
There are a number of areas in which future climate change has important implications for
current forest management. These are itemized as follows:
• There is a need to incorporate climate change into growth and yield forecasts.
• There is a need to incorporate climate change into long-term timber supply
analysis and forest management planning.
• There is a need to incorporate climate change into reforestation choices.
• There is a need to consider climate change in identifying protection program
requirements and in specific types of adaptations, such as reducing
vulnerability by managing landscape configurations (e.g., “fire-smart”
landscapes, insect-proofed landscapes).
• There is a need to incorporate climate change considerations into sustainable
forest management objectives and into the practices that forest managers use
or may use to achieve modified objectives.
A cumulative effects approach may, in some cases, be needed to determine appropriate
actions. For example, some areas will be subject to increased risk of both drought and fire
and therefore a shift in species composition toward more jack pine could provide multiple
benefits.

I read your quote. It said trees are growing farther north. Means more fiber available to log. DO you not understand what you wrote? Where I come from we don't log in the winter because it is well, winter so longer season is good for us.
 
skookumchuck
+2
#5
Just waiting patiently for peeps to beak off about how they are changing their life dramatically to adapt to AGW. All the sacrifices they are making along with proof of same.
Much more convincing than lecturing peeps on the internet whom they know nothing about and expect them to totally believe the science is settled. We thought, or were expected to believe many supposed scientific facts to be true over the years. More than a few of them now thought of as hokey.
 
beaker
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

I read your quote. It said trees are growing farther north. Means more fiber available to log. DO you not understand what you wrote? Where I come from we don't log in the winter because it is well, winter so longer season is good for us.

So would that be downtown Vancouver? All of the north relies on its winter cut. And since climate change will affect the north more, it will have more impact on forest operations. Perhaps more significant, the effects of climate change will also include the following, from the report...

"The long-term effects of climate change on sequestered carbon in Canada’s forests are unknown. However, the expected increases in fire, insect, and disease disturbance have the potential to release into the atmosphere significant quantities of carbon that is currently stored in forest ecosystems (see for example Kurz et al. [2008])."

So that the very impacts on forests associated with climate change will worsen climate change through release of more carbon.

I understand that you don't want to be concerned about man made climate change, but others in the industry, in fact some fairly important players already are. Also from the report,

"The Forest Products Association of Canada has noted that climate change "poses a significant risk to the health, vitality, and long-run sustainability of the forests and the many communities that depend on them” (Lazar 2005, page 631). The Forest Products Association of Canada calls for forest policies that balance the need to adapt to climate change with the need to mitigate factors that contribute to climate change."


In other words the FPA recognizes the need to reduce our impact on the climate.
 
Walter
+2
#7
The Dutch Elm Beetle, and the Asian Long-horn beetle are here because they wanted to get here before the climate changed. What a pile of crap the OP is.
 
beaker
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

The Dutch Elm Beetle, and the Asian Long-horn beetle are here because they wanted to get here before the climate changed. What a pile of crap the OP is.

Neither of those beetles were mentioned in the study, or the OP. The fact that there has been other infestations, at other times does not detract from the findings that the current waves of insect induced forest damage are related to Climate Change. So that would make your post a red herring.
 
Walter
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

Neither of those beetles were mentioned in the study, or the OP. The fact that there has been other infestations, at other times does not detract from the findings that the current waves of insect induced forest damage are related to Climate Change. So that would make your post a red herring.

There is no proof the current infestation is a result of climate change. Lefties want to think that way though. Also, I prefer salmon.
 
beaker
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuckView Post

Just waiting patiently for peeps to beak off about how they are changing their life dramatically to adapt to AGW. All the sacrifices they are making along with proof of same.

Since this is irrelevent to the thread maybe you would like to start such a thread and include a system of determining what constitutes proof of same.

Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuckView Post

Much more convincing than lecturing peeps on the internet whom they know nothing about and expect them to totally believe the science is settled. We thought, or were expected to believe many supposed scientific facts to be true over the years. More than a few of them now thought of as hokey.

If I expected people here to be totally believe the science is settled I think I would be focussing more on what adaptive measures we could be taking. Name one scientific fact, supported by 98% of work related scientists, in the last fifty years, that has turned out to be hokey.
 
Tonington
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

The recent mountain pine beetle event shows that climate-related factors can
have dramatic effects
on timber supply in a relatively short time period. Climate change
will impact harvest operations."

Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

There is no proof the current infestation is a result of climate change. Lefties want to think that way though. Also, I prefer salmon.

Learn to read Walter. Your objections are a pile of crap.
 
beaker
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

There is no proof the current infestation is a result of climate change. Lefties want to think that way though. Also, I prefer salmon.


You may prefer eating salmon, but it looks like you prefer writing red herrings.

"The mountain pine beetle is normally an innocuous forest pest. However,
outbreaks occasionally occur that result in widespread pine mortality over large
areas. There have been four major outbreaks of mountain pine beetle in British
Columbia over the last 120 years (Taylor et al. 2006; Carroll 2006). The current
outbreak is by far the most widespread. As of 2005 over 8.7 million hectares of
pine forest in British Columbia were affected (BC Ministry of Forests and Range
2006). This area is 10 times larger than that affected by any of the previous
infestations (Carroll 2006). Moreover, the regions currently being affected have
never previously been exposed to mountain pine beetle attacks. To date the
beetle has killed about 40% of the province’s inventory of mature lodgepole pine
(Walton et al. 2007). Projections suggest that the infestation could result in the
loss of 77% of the province’s mature pine by 2014 (Walton et al. 2007). The mountain pine
beetle has recently spread from British Columbia into regions of northwestern Alberta
that have never before been infested. Significant populations have become established in areas around Grande Cache and Grande Prairie and on the border of Alberta and British
Columbia west of Peace River.

Two factors have contributed to the current outbreak: the presence of large areas of
mature lodgepole pine, and an unprecedented number of abnormally warm winters in
consecutive years (Carroll et al. 2004). Previously, the geographic range of the mountain
pine beetle was limited by climate. Recent changes in British Columbia’s climate have
resulted in a greater than 75% increase in climatically optimal beetle habitat (Carroll et al.
2004)."

This report produced for the Government of Canada, and the forest industry, by scientists relying on a very large list of scientific studies, informs us that this infestation is greatly compounded by the impact of climate change.
 
Locutus
#13
Man-made global warming begat climate change which will soon become climate.

Easier to make the goal post stand that way.
 
beaker
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

Man-made global warming begat climate change which will soon become climate.

Easier to make the goal post stand that way.


Let's hope it doesn't get as complicated as the begats in the old testament.

"The examples in this chapter show that climate change is already affecting Canada’s
forests and they illustrate two general characteristics of the impacts of climate change.
First, events such as the mountain pine beetle infestation are often the result of a number
of interacting factors. Changes in local climate may contribute to the event, but many
other factors (e.g., characteristics of specific disturbance agents, interactions between
disturbances, tree and forest-ecosystem characteristics, and previous management)
may also combine to create a set of circumstances that lead to a particular event or
impact. This underscores the multifaceted nature of the assessment of the impacts of
climate change and the many challenges that we face in predicting impacts resulting from
complex interactions. It also illustrates that it is possible to reduce the sensitivity of
forests to climate change by managing the landscape."

It would be good if the present concern begets some action.
 
Walter
+1 / -1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

Let's hope it doesn't get as complicated as the begats in the old testament.

"The examples in this chapter show that climate change is already affecting Canada’s
forests and they illustrate two general characteristics of the impacts of climate change.
First, events such as the mountain pine beetle infestation are often the result of a number
of interacting factors. Changes in local climate may contribute to the event, but many
other factors (e.g., characteristics of specific disturbance agents, interactions between
disturbances, tree and forest-ecosystem characteristics, and previous management)
may also combine to create a set of circumstances that lead to a particular event or
impact. This underscores the multifaceted nature of the assessment of the impacts of
climate change and the many challenges that we face in predicting impacts resulting from
complex interactions. It also illustrates that it is possible to reduce the sensitivity of
forests to climate change by managing the landscape."

It would be good if the present concern begets some action.

The begats are in the new testament (Matthew 1) but why let ignorance get in the way of lefty propaganda.
 
skookumchuck
+3
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

Since this is irrelevent to the thread maybe you would like to start such a thread and include a system of determining what constitutes proof of same.

A comment pertaining to your preachy arrogance is relevant to the thread.


If I expected people here to be totally believe the science is settled I think I would be focussing more on what adaptive measures we could be taking. Name one scientific fact, supported by 98% of work related scientists, in the last fifty years, that has turned out to be hokey.

Where have you been while the world of science evolved? Climate scientists are immune to error, unlike medical scientists?
 
beaker
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

The begats are in the new testament (Matthew 1) but why let ignorance get in the way of lefty propaganda.

The question for me is why let ignorance, as expressed in your new and uncalled for bit of red herring. get in the way of a good discussion about forestry and adaptation to climate change. (Genesis 5)
 
Tonington
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

The begats are in the new testament (Matthew 1) but why let ignorance get in the way of lefty propaganda.

Walter lecturing about ignorance? Hah! You never read Genesis?

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Genesis 5:7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
Genesis 5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
Genesis 5:10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
Genesis 5:12 And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:
Genesis 5:13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
Genesis 5:15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
Genesis 5:16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
Genesis 5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
Genesis 5:19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
Genesis 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
Genesis 5:22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
Genesis 5:25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.
Genesis 5:26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
Genesis 5:28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
Genesis 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
Genesis 5:30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
Genesis 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
 
Walter
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Walter lecturing about ignorance? Hah! You never read Genesis?

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Genesis 5:7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
Genesis 5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
Genesis 5:10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
Genesis 5:12 And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:
Genesis 5:13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
Genesis 5:15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
Genesis 5:16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
Genesis 5:18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:
Genesis 5:19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
Genesis 5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
Genesis 5:22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
Genesis 5:25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech.
Genesis 5:26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
Genesis 5:28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:
Genesis 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
Genesis 5:30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:
Genesis 5:31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.
Genesis 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Google to the rescue.
 
beaker
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuckView Post

Where have you been while the world of science evolved? Climate scientists are immune to error, unlike medical scientists?

As I suggested earlier,

"Name one scientific fact, supported by 98% of work related scientists, in the last fifty years, that has turned out to be hokey."
 
Walter
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

As I suggested earlier,

"Name one scientific fact, supported by 98% of work related scientists, in the last fifty years, that has turned out to be hokey."

Ask Barry Marshall.
 
beaker
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Google to the rescue.

Red herrings seldom constitute a need for rescue.
 
taxslave
+1
#23
The bigist problem is that people like Beaker look for and see gloom and doom where the rest of us see new opportunities. Of course when your objective is to destroy the economy it is not hard to invent some Gloom & Doom.
 
Tonington
+2
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Google to the rescue.

Yeah...I'm not going to pick up the bible and type it all out to you. Some of us remember the things we read. It's just funny that you brought up ignorance. You either never read Genesis, or you have forgotten and then decided to chide someone else for your own ignorance.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

The bigist problem is that people like Beaker look for and see gloom and doom where the rest of us see new opportunities. Of course when your objective is to destroy the economy it is not hard to invent some Gloom & Doom.

I would counter that the biggest problem also includes people like Walter who simply bury their head in the sand and call ideologically uncomfortable findings crap. At least we have professional forest stewards like yourself who understand that they have to adapt to whatever nature gives them.
 
darkbeaver
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

As I suggested earlier,

"Name one scientific fact, supported by 98% of work related scientists, in the last fifty years, that has turned out to be hokey."

What the hell is a work related scientist?
 
beaker
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Ask Barry Marshall.

Interesting, I've been blessed with a lack of ulcers. But, google to the rescue...

That reference to Barry is a good one, but nowhere did I see documentation that 98% of doctors or medical researchers disagreed with his theory. In fact he said himself that he had followers. The bacteria was discovered back in the 1800s and only waited for a possibility to replicate and find the implications. All of which have been done many times with climate science and anthropogenic global warming.
 
taxslave
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Yeah...I'm not going to pick up the bible and type it all out to you. Some of us remember the things we read. It's just funny that you brought up ignorance. You either never read Genesis, or you have forgotten and then decided to chide someone else for your own ignorance.



I would counter that the biggest problem also includes people like Walter who simply bury their head in the sand and call ideologically uncomfortable findings crap. At least we have professional forest stewards like yourself who understand that they have to adapt to whatever nature gives them.

Adapting to nature has never been the problem. Adapting to ever changing politics is a royal pain and often counter productive.
 
beaker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

The bigist problem is that people like Beaker look for and see gloom and doom where the rest of us see new opportunities. Of course when your objective is to destroy the economy it is not hard to invent some Gloom & Doom.

The biggest problem for people like taxslave is that they don't want to face the results of their own mistakes and would rather try to deflect such concerns by making up BS about other people. There are solutions, or at least options available for people who are willing to look for a way out of our mess, such as this from the report mentioned in the OP.

www.nofc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/book...pdfs/29616.pdf (external - login to view)

"A second feature of climate change that is illustrated by recent experiences is that it has the potential to result in multiple, interacting impacts that occur simultaneously. Changes in drought risk, fire risk, risk of insect and disease disturbance, growth and yield, and extreme weather risk will all occur at the same time. This has important implications for forest management. First, forest managers will need to recognize, understand, and adapt to the cumulative impacts of climate change. Assessment frameworks and adaptation strategies that are
comprehensive, holistic, and integrated are required."

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

What the hell is a work related scientist?

A scientist who does work related to the subject being discussed.
 
darkbeaver
+2
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post




A scientist who does work related to the subject being discussed.

Thanks that makes sense. Since the scientists work is so closely tied to the authorities leading the call to arms against this horrid blight (CO2) I am inclined to think that maintenance of salaries may influence "scientific" consensus more than the scientific evidence. In other words these scientists are mission oriented as opposed to science oriented. Academic fraud and corruption are epidemic in this age.
 
skookumchuck
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

As I suggested earlier,

"Name one scientific fact, supported by 98% of work related scientists, in the last fifty years, that has turned out to be hokey."


Want something related?


New errors in IPCC climate change report - Telegraph (external - login to view)


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report is supposed to be the world’s most authoritative scientific account of the scale of global warming.

But this paper has discovered a series of new flaws in it including:

  • The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.
  • Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.
  • New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.
  • More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.
They are the latest in a series of damaging revelations about the IPCC’s most recent report, published in 2007.

Last month, the panel was forced to issue a humiliating retraction after it emerged statements about the melting of Himalayan glaciers were inaccurate.

Last weekend, this paper revealed that the panel had based claims about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence in a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine
 

Similar Threads

3
1
Canada at Bali global climate change talks
by CBC News | Dec 11th, 2007
no new posts