Socialists in a Panic

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Hmm..... Don'cha suppose that all depends on what you did with the model? ;-)
Nope. A model is a tool for projecting, forecasting, predicting etc. based on data entered into it. In itself it can never become evidence. The prediction it makes isn't evidence either, because it is basically, an educated guess. It's accuracy can never be 100% and depending on the bias of the modler, might even be used to deceive.


Of course, you may be talking about swimsuit models in which case, yeah, you'd have a point! ;-)
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Models have correctly predicted many results in genetics, which is a highly dynamic study just like the climate.
There you have the answer to your question. They're tools for predicting.


Models incorporate laws of physics obtained by observation. That is, they are based on evidence.
And there you have it again. They are based on evidence. They use data that is entered into them. They are not themselves evidence. And if the modler is corrupt, so will be the results of the model.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
"The beetles killed the trees because global warming let them survive in a warmer Winter. In the past the cold Winters always killed the beetles. This is just one more thing that global warming is doing to us."

I'm far from an expert on the matter but I think that may be a bit of an oversimpification. To kill the Mountain Pine Beetle according to the scientists we need 6 weeks of minus 40 weather and early in the season if possible. In British Columbia we don't and never have had minus 40 for 6 consecutive weeks anywhere. Generally speaking we even get a mid winter thaw most places, even the Peace River many years. I'd be very surprised if a 0.74C change in temperature has allowed the M.P.B. to survive where it otherwise wouldn't. Anyone have any more evidence? (Anecdotal or statistical)
Not quite true. I've heard you need 2 - 3 weeks of -40, but there's other factors that come into consideration. First it depends on the depth of snow. The beetles descend to the roots for the winter and if the snow is too deep, the cold will never reach them, even over 6 weeks (which, as you say, never happens). However if cold comes early in the year as it did in October of '85, the beetles have not yet formed their antifreeze and there isn't sufficient snow to protect them and you don't need it that cold or that duration. Even so, while the spruce beetles were done in, the pine beetles bounced back. I don't know what factors influenced that.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Under 40°C is what is needed for 100% bark beetle mortality. You don't need 100% bark beetle mortality to contain the spread of the species. But you do need it when other factors are changing. Warmer growing seasons has expanded the habitat that the beetles can invade, and it also speeds up the life cycles of the beetle. When that happens, you do need -40°C, which we don't and never got, except at very high elevations.
Nah, we got under -40 quite often here. The winter of the first gulf war is memorable to me because that's the one where we reached -46C (50 below) right in downtown Prince George. Not at all pleasant.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Really? You mean that's what the evidence you like supports.
NO, that's what the evidence supports. If it didn't, why do the alarmists have to use fraud to get the results they want? Do you really think they would do that if they didn't have to?

Yup. You asked why the bug hasn't moved south. I mentioned that it's most likely comfortable here.
I asked why the infestation hadn't occured in the south long ago, since the bug already is there and if it was just a matter of temperatures, then nothing would have prevented them wiping out all pine trees in that area eons ago.

And eventually the sun will cook Earth. So what? Does that mean we still pollute the planet and expect it not to bite back?
Nope.

... with an apparent bias.
That bias is all in the eye of the beholder. It's just a fact, we need oil and guess who is going to supply it.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
I already have an excuse, just like I explained before, I'm not a climatologist nor involved in any related sciences. So it's a bit difficult for me to debate the science of it since I'm not an expert and won't try and pretend to be one either.

Seems to me your argument isn't based on climate but based on whether or not modeling is accurate. It's a red herring.
My argument hasn't been made yet. The dispute over modeling doesn't come into it.

Now, unless you can convince me otherwise I'll stick to what was explained to me by real people. [/quote] But if you're so sure, surely you can explain it. I'm not asking for detailed scientific data, just write down what you "know". Ask you climatologist aquaintences to email you the info and paste it here if you feel so inadequate yourself. Surely, since you're so adamant on the subject, you must base it on something substantial. Or maybe you just made up the climatologists who explained it to you. Hmmmmm..... could be why you're dodging it so frantically.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
And there you have it again. They are based on evidence. They use data that is entered into them. They are not themselves evidence.
They can be. If a model gives results that are in accord with what's observed, the model is evidence that the assumptions and processes it's built from have something to do with reality.
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
Jheeesh,I worked on the beetle kill program back in 1980 in southern Alberta,It's very obvious how much the media has brainwashed some of you folks.

so much mis information.:-?

The beetles and infestations are very simple,in laymens terms they only attack old pine unless the infestation is huge,young pines will kick them out with their sap flow.

Fires would normally take care of this cycle but man decided a long time ago he could change mother nature and was once again proven wrong.

I know a lot about the mountain pine beetles if anyone's interested as I was part of the initial "attack" crew on the beetles when they first migrated over the Flathead valley and into the south Castle.

It was more of a make work project for us unemployed loggers back then but it was heli in,drop off on a mountain and then compass in on a red tree as the heli hovered over it.cut it down,hand peel the bark,peel the bark back on the stump and then cut the tree into 4 foot sections and soak in diesel and scorch.
We experimented with clear cut swaths,select cutting and other methods and to this day I can go back to those sites and see what worked best after all those years.the select was the best.
You cant stop the beetles,when the environuts stopped logging of mature pine in B.C. and Alberta many years ago they pretty well opened up a smorg for pine beetles.
When they start infesting young pine and killing them then that's the indicator that thing's are out of control,their main dinner is old pine with low sap flow,young pine have a good sap flow,when they start dieing then it's a major infestation.

Right now the forestry in Alberta is useing the beetles like Al Gore with global warming to scare enough folks for funding for helicoptors and more beetle programs which are a waste,if the tree's red,the beetles are miles away and left a year ago,so dont tell me mr. Forestry guy that you need more bucks for your program.

That's my beetle rant,if the forestry wouldnt have went for a ****e back then I would still be logging today,I did marry the daughter of a sawmill owner,that was a mistake,her dad had hands the size of baseballmitts and knew how to use them on me.8O
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
It was a $60.00 cam or I would have had a nice video but I was on the deck haveing a coffee and a smoke when that came down and I ran out of memory when the rest came down.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
NO, that's what the evidence supports. If it didn't, why do the alarmists have to use fraud to get the results they want? Do you really think they would do that if they didn't have to?
Yes, I do. I met Paul Watson. He's a crackpot. I also met Suzuki. He isn't so much of a crackpot. He's only a little extreme sometimes. But, as much as I think alarmists have a plan, so do deniers, and I don't think all of them have their poop in a group either.
Most of the evidence I've seen are from people who should know, not politicians, bloggers, and whatnot and they give reasonable suggestions why the planet is warming. And it isn't as simply as radiation from the sun, volcanic activity, and other natural sources.

I asked why the infestation hadn't occured in the south long ago, since the bug already is there and if it was just a matter of temperatures, then nothing would have prevented them wiping out all pine trees in that area eons ago.
And I didn't say that temperature was the only factor. You just assumed I did.

It's a relief to know that you think that way.

That bias is all in the eye of the beholder. It's just a fact, we need oil and guess who is going to supply it.
When we are done converting my Dakota to electric drive and synthetic lubes. I won't need petroleum. Those greedy bastards get my thumbed nose. :)
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
It was a $60.00 cam or I would have had a nice video but I was on the deck haveing a coffee and a smoke when that came down and I ran out of memory when the rest came down.
Kinda neat. We were climbing one time and saw a chimney close a little bit.rocks from inside the chimney shot out like a baseball pitcher threw them out and a rat's nest that was partway up disintegrated. It was cool. All we felt was a little tap barely noticeable in the rock.