Conservative answer to Global Warming

[rogue06]

My parents had a tree farm in alabama. The forestry service seemed to know exactly what they where doing. They told them how to pull out the old trees, plant the money making trees, did controlled burns etc. The trees grew up just fine over time to create a forest suitable for profit and a good deal of good hunting to boot.

Your example sounds more to me like it might be a cherry picked excuse used by whatever source you got it from for political means than reality given that the sort of successful planting and harvesting of trres that occurred on my parents land happens all the time.

Jim

She wasn't talking about where trees were already growing but where there are few if any.

[Zara]

It depends on what you mean by "deny it". If you mean deny the liberal narrative that temperature is only moving in one direction, and that man is the cause, then yes, most conservatives will deny it, and for good reason. The science is simply not there to support such a claim, no matter how much liberals whoop and holler about "consensus" and "settled science". Trying to stop the natural climatic variations of the Earth that have been happening since Creation makes about as much sense as trying to stop the Earth from orbiting the sun.

Where did you get the idea from that the science isn't there? Or that it is a 'natural variation'? Because my guess is that it isn't the scientific community itself - which leaves you with a narrative problem of your own.

If someone goes to a doctor, and after tests, that are agreed on by the community of doctors, HIV is identified, for which treatment is necessary, is it justified to just ignored that diagnosis and find one doctor out of 100 that tells them what you want to hear, that there is no HIV? Meanwhile because they "don't believe it" they continue to act like they don't have HIV, spreading it around as it were because they don't want to take responsibility for or listen to what they're told by people that are in authority to know. Yeah, nah, I think that kind of wilful ignorance would criminal if there were a law where there ought to be one.

The international community agrees that the science is settled. The business community agrees, well, those without an economic interest in fossil fuels at least. Most of the world agrees. It's just one specific group of people, largely for economic reasons, that denies it, wilful ignorance for which I can only hope that justice comes down hard.

[Teallaura]

My parents had a tree farm in alabama. The forestry service seemed to know exactly what they where doing. They told them how to pull out the old trees, plant the money making trees, did controlled burns etc. The trees grew up just fine over time to create a forest suitable for profit and a good deal of good hunting to boot.

Your example sounds more to me like it might be a cherry picked excuse used by whatever source you got it from for political means than reality given that the sort of successful planting and harvesting of trres that occurred on my parents land happens all the time.

Jim

Alabama has zero issues with desertification - our soil is incredibly fertile and rainfall is abundant making tree farming of several sorts not just possible, but profitable. There is little, if any, need for reclamation. I suppose you might include clear cut but that reclamation happens naturally and quickly here, going through the natural cycle in only a few years (about five on average, just from what I've observed). Rain forests can't do that - or so we've been told.

And yeah, we have a great forestry service - but that's just another asset for our forests/woodlands. Doesn't tell us if rain forest reclamation follows the same cycle or not - we don't have a rain forest.

I specified desertification reclamation efforts and you cite my home state where we poke things in the ground and run as a counter to multiple failed tree plantings in marginal land that failed despite huge influxes of human labor and capital trying to get trees to not die. I think you are the one cherry picking here.

As for source, Africa's first attempts were in the 70's (I think World was the first publication I read about it in), China's are ongoing and I've read and watched documentaries about both for years. Public knowledge.


EDIT:

FYI: I live in a rural area of central Alabama. After two years of growth (because disabled and smart enough to realize you can't mow the yard aren't the same thing) I paid $1000 to have the yard done - it required a tractor and a chainsaw. NOT a good comparison to marginal or desert lands anywhere.

[Teallaura]

She wasn't talking about where trees were already growing but where there are few if any.

Exactly.

[Mountain Man]

Where did you get the idea from that the science isn't there?

Because I'm one of those people who reads a variety of sources and stays informed. I mean the fact that certain organizations have been repeatedly caught red-handed "adjusting" the data to fit the hypothesis, rather than the standard scientific practice of adjusting the hypothesis to fit the data doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the "consensus".

[Mountain Man]

Alabama has zero issues with desertification - our soil is incredibly fertile and rainfall is abundant making tree farming of several sorts not just possible, but profitable. There is little, if any, need for reclamation. I suppose you might include clear cut but that reclamation happens naturally and quickly here, going through the natural cycle in only a few years (about five on average, just from what I've observed). Rain forests can't do that - or so we've been told.

And yeah, we have a great forestry service - but that's just another asset for our forests/woodlands. Doesn't tell us if rain forest reclamation follows the same cycle or not - we don't have a rain forest.

I specified desertification reclamation efforts and you cite my home state where we poke things in the ground and run as a counter to multiple failed tree plantings in marginal land that failed despite huge influxes of human labor and capital trying to get trees to not die. I think you are the one cherry picking here.

As for source, Africa's first attempts were in the 70's (I think World was the first publication I read about it in), China's are ongoing and I've read and watched documentaries about both for years. Public knowledge.

I do appreciate the irony of ox accusing you of cherry picking data and then citing anecdotal tales of his family's farm.

[Teallaura]

Because I'm one of those people who reads a variety of sources and stays informed. I mean the fact that certain organizations have been repeatedly caught red-handed "adjusting" the data to fit the hypothesis, rather than the standard scientific practice of adjusting the hypothesis to fit the data doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the "consensus".

Modelling isn't data anymore than an unanswered questionnaire is.

[Zara]

Because I'm one of those people who reads a variety of sources and stays informed. I mean the fact that certain organizations have been repeatedly caught red-handed "adjusting" the data to fit the hypothesis, rather than the standard scientific practice of adjusting the hypothesis to fit the data doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the "consensus".

What do a few scientists and their fraud have to do with the overwhelming agreement that there is a problem and that humans are the main cause? If some conservatives cheat on their taxes, do you then agree that all conservatives are cheating? I don't.

"The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW."

The second issue is that you're not an expert, you lack the faculty to make the judgement you entitle yourself to. You're just some man with an opinion. Do you tell your doctor how to do their job - because you read some stuff on the internet - and that you know better than them about the diagnosis?

[Teallaura]

What do a few scientists and their fraud have to do with the overwhelming agreement that there is a problem and that humans are the main cause? If some conservatives cheat on their taxes, do you then agree that all conservatives are cheating? I don't.

"The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW."

The second issue is that you're not an expert, you lack the faculty to make the judgement you entitle yourself to. You're just some man with an opinion. Do you tell your doctor how to do their job - because you read some stuff on the internet - and that you know better than them about the diagnosis?

*emphasis mine

This is equally true for you - IF it were true. Methodology isn't that variable - it's valid or not. With the Internet, checking the tires on even complex topics is perfectly possible.

I think the data shows something, yes - but the modelling is wildly unreliable. The predictions stem from the modelling, which has thus far batted .000 - well, excepting the Russian model that doesn't show the sky falling.

[oxmixmudd]

She wasn't talking about where trees were already growing but where there are few if any.

Missed that. But there is probably a reason trees are not already growing there, so that would be a different sort of problem.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Alabama has zero issues with desertification - our soil is incredibly fertile and rainfall is abundant making tree farming of several sorts not just possible, but profitable. There is little, if any, need for reclamation. I suppose you might include clear cut but that reclamation happens naturally and quickly here, going through the natural cycle in only a few years (about five on average, just from what I've observed). Rain forests can't do that - or so we've been told.

And yeah, we have a great forestry service - but that's just another asset for our forests/woodlands. Doesn't tell us if rain forest reclamation follows the same cycle or not - we don't have a rain forest.

I specified desertification reclamation efforts and you cite my home state where we poke things in the ground and run as a counter to multiple failed tree plantings in marginal land that failed despite huge influxes of human labor and capital trying to get trees to not die. I think you are the one cherry picking here.

As for source, Africa's first attempts were in the 70's (I think World was the first publication I read about it in), China's are ongoing and I've read and watched documentaries about both for years. Public knowledge.


EDIT:

FYI: I live in a rural area of central Alabama. After two years of growth (because disabled and smart enough to realize you can't mow the yard aren't the same thing) I paid $1000 to have the yard done - it required a tractor and a chainsaw. NOT a good comparison to marginal or desert lands anywhere.

No - you are correct. I missed the part where you were talking out trying to get trees growing in deserts - my bad.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

[/B]*emphasis mine

This is equally true for you - IF it were true. Methodology isn't that variable - it's valid or not. With the Internet, checking the tires on even complex topics is perfectly possible.

I think the data shows something, yes - but the modelling is wildly unreliable. The predictions stem from the modelling, which has thus far batted .000 - well, excepting the Russian model that doesn't show the sky falling.

There is no way to reasonably deny the warming of the world. The cause would be more debatable, but not significantly so. MM is not a person capable of evaluating science, he was not even able to process some very simple principles of optics and perspective and overcome his own personal prejudices. So while others may not be experts, most arguing here for Global Warming are more qualified that MM to evaluate the science behind it, and far less likely to be bamboozled by pseudo science trying to deny it. MM is against AGW because that's what his ultra conservative sources tell him to believe, and that's about as far as it goes.


Jim

[Zara]

[/B]*emphasis mine

This is equally true for you - IF it were true. Methodology isn't that variable - it's valid or not. With the Internet, checking the tires on even complex topics is perfectly possible.

I think the data shows something, yes - but the modelling is wildly unreliable. The predictions stem from the modelling, which has thus far batted .000 - well, excepting the Russian model that doesn't show the sky falling.

My comments aren't questioning the diagnosis, his are.

Again, models developed by the world's scientific community - that agrees those models are sufficient for this task. Your opinion is that they are not, you're entitled to the opinion, but not to the judgement of fact that they are not. If the scientific community comes out and says that, then fine.

The international community is in agreement about the risks related to those models, and the need to act (an upper bound of 2.0C). So are major business players - ironically actually. It continues to be a small contingent of people that tend to have a vested economic interest in denying the models, or calling the scientists as frauds, or whatever else.

[Mountain Man]

What do a few scientists and their fraud have to do with the overwhelming agreement that there is a problem and that humans are the main cause? If some conservatives cheat on their taxes, do you then agree that all conservatives are cheating? I don't.

"The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW."

The second issue is that you're not an expert, you lack the faculty to make the judgement you entitle yourself to. You're just some man with an opinion. Do you tell your doctor how to do their job - because you read some stuff on the internet - and that you know better than them about the diagnosis?

There's a difference between not rejecting a hypothesis, and affirming it. The fact is, not a single global warming prediction has come to pass, and they keep fudging the models and data to keep the narrative alive.

And consensus? Many of the greatest scientific discoveries in history have happened when one man with good data broke from the "consensus".

[Cow Poke]

There is no way to reasonably deny the warming of the world. The cause would be more debatable, but not significantly so. MM is not a person capable of evaluating science, he was not even able to process some very simple principles of optics and perspective and overcome his own personal prejudices. So while others may not be experts, most arguing here for Global Warming are more qualified that MM to evaluate the science behind it, and far less likely to be bamboozled by pseudo science trying to deny it. MM is against AGW because that's what his ultra conservative sources tell him to believe, and that's about as far as it goes.


Jim

Jim, It's kinda silly to have MM on "permanent ignore", and still be debating him by proxy, no?