Climate Change and forestry in Canada
- Thread starter beaker
- Start date
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.
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. :lol:
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.
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.
Adapting to nature has never been the problem. Adapting to ever changing politics is a royal pain and often counter productive.
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.
http://www.nofc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/bookstore_pdfs/29616.pdf
"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."
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.
Want something related?
New errors in IPCC climate change report - Telegraph
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.
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
I use Bing. Only AGW needs to promote that 98% are in agreement even though I've never seen a poll. Another number out of a hat I guess.
I think this would be a cause and effect reversal. Some percentage of public authorities have accepted the proof provided by the scientists. There is good reason to be sceptical with science as with law, politics, religion, and the media for examples. All the more reason to actually read reports that lay out where we stand and put forward options for dealing with the problem. The epidemics we are talking about in this thread are those of disease and insects which are, through the imbalances caused by climate change, having a massive impact on forests.
If you are accusing the scientists working for Natural Resources Canada of academic fraud and corruption please show some indication you know what you are talking about. If you only want to address the problem generally start another thread to deal with that issue.
That is probably a bad guess, but why don't you use Bing to find the source of the data that shows 98% of climate scientists are in agreement with the IPCC findings and the climate science that shows the world getting warmer, and that Humans are responsible for a good part of that, rather than just guessing. I suggest going to the original study rather than the various interpretations. That way you can make up your own mind.
This from the study, gives info on the scope of the problems our forests and foresters face.
From the study, here, http://www.nofc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/bookstore_pdfs/29616.pdf
" The frequency and intensity of extreme
weather and climatic events, such as
thunderstorms and windstorms,
hailstorms, intense precipitation events,
drought, heat waves, and abnormally
warm winters is likely to increase.
• Relatively large increases in the risks
associated with extreme weather are
possible as early as 2030.
• Increased drought frequency and
intensity will be a concern in areas that
are already dry.
Hmmmmm....now after asserting that the science you quote is irrefutable, you say, " There is good reason to be sceptical with science as with law, politics, religion, and the media for examples." Painting yourself into a corner is embarrassing huh?
Are you part of the solution? Or just beaking off about the problem?
Are you part of the solution? Or just beaking off about the problem?
I figured that would probably get taken out of context. There is no corner here, and no embarrassment. I congratulate people who are sceptical, and encourage it. As I did in the rest of the post you neglected to include, where I suggested reading the relevant information. It works much better than accepting a viewpoint on an important issue without trying to validate it.
It's reading skeptics here and elsewhere that actually convinced me the whole CO2 business was very dirty business cynically plucking the heart strings of frightened consumers. There is certainly no secret about the recent revelations of widespread muzzeling of government scientists. This is very much indicative of totalitarian authority. We will have the carbon taxes paid willingly or we will employ the bayonet to gather them.
Work related? The group of scientists who are reaping the millions in funds and grants?
The forest is ever changing anyway, fire and a host of other things clean up the
forests it is part of what I consider the natural climate evolution of forests,
The no winter more time to harvest and being able to move north is disturbing.
For one thing winter is a natural protection from excessive cutting. Winter logging
still takes place however. In addition warmer climate would mean less logging in
the more northern regions because of muskeg.
Climate change has gone on since the beginning of time and will continue long
after we're gone. In the years ahead we will see things cooling off in fact some
suggest that is already happening.
forests it is part of what I consider the natural climate evolution of forests,
The no winter more time to harvest and being able to move north is disturbing.
For one thing winter is a natural protection from excessive cutting. Winter logging
still takes place however. In addition warmer climate would mean less logging in
the more northern regions because of muskeg.
Climate change has gone on since the beginning of time and will continue long
after we're gone. In the years ahead we will see things cooling off in fact some
suggest that is already happening.
Uhm....wouldn't this, and the onus of proof, be beakers, and not Walters, position
to prove? Walter isn't making the 98% claim, so why should he have the assignment
of proving this?
The proper term is trolling.
Because trolls KNOW that they are right and therefore we MUST believe them without proof.