Starts at 6 minutes I am betting a lot will switch off when they hear who is talking but if you have an open mind you will listen
The title makes this a no goer. "Denier" is an idiotic label to those that only disagree with the severity and timing of future warming. BTW: my mind is far more open than his.
Great, yet another nonsensical thread. Hell, you and others have been calling me a "denier" for ages now. And yet, none can ever actually say why that is, or what I am actually denying. Hell, the predictions I have been making for years now are actually many times worse than even most of the scaremongers will go. Yet, somehow I am still a "denier". I no longer expect any kind of predictability from many in this debate anymore.
Thanks for posting this podcast. Informative and fun with the humor sprinkled in. It might make the deniers stop and think about the info......and then itmight not. Not sure it even matters al that much. Folks will believe what they want to believe........even if it makes little logical, scientific sense. He certainly blew T's idea about planting trees to offset emissions.
You are asking those who value their ideology over reason to have an open mind? We'll see how that works....not good so far.
The OG huckster... Go figure... Mann is the progenitor of the Hockey Stick, so of course his view is anyone who doesn't agree with the hockey stick must be reeducated.... LOL
The fundamental failure of the AGW dogma is its inability to react to data that doesn't support their conclusions, and failing that, having to manipulate data to create any evidence of their narrative. It's essentially a vicious circle around which pointing out that the data don't support the religious fervor of the faithful requires reeducation or gulags to shunt those "deniers" into. The super ironic part of the conversation being that it's the AGW faithful themselves are the actual deniers. And if you don't agree, you're cast as a nazi, or any other boogy man that the faithful feel makes you horrible enough...
I don’t know who T is, but you have a dilemma now. You are appealing to Mann’s authority and assuming planting trees doesn’t offset emissions. But your holy scriptures conflict with his message. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Chapter03.pdf So you are going to have to choose between appealing to the authority Mann who made unsubstantiated claims and the IPCC who, based on evidence, sees planting trees as a legitimate offset strategy. Are you going to go with Mann’s unsubstantiated opinion or with the IPCC assessment based on peer reviewed studies? I’m sure you didn’t catch that when the podcast duo discussed Canadian forests they didn’t elaborate on what “managed” forests are that their assessment was based on. They didn’t because “managed” forests is code for logged forests. And logging is responsible for the lion’s share of emissions from those forests—directly and indirectly. They also failed to mention logging companies are not reforesting cleared land in a meaningful way. https://naturecanada.ca/news/press-...shows-flaws-in-canadas-two-billion-tree-plan/ Of course they left out the part about fires in North American boreal forests being a fraction of what they were in the past. I guess the very recent uptick fits their narrative but longer term trends don’t. Guess which information gets left out so you don’t have full disclosure? https://www.preventionweb.net/news/...al-forests-are-burning-lot-less-150-years-ago Of course Canada needs to do a better job with forest management but historical perspective of fire before major anthropogenic effects in North American forests is important.
Do you have an open mind? Did you watch the video? Have you thought critically about what was said and verified it against peer reviewed studies?
And it also depends on where the fires are located. The states that actually allow managed forestry tend to have as many fires per acre, but more of them are quickly contained. In Idaho, the largest forest fire problems are actually in the wilderness and primitive areas where no logging or clearing is allowed at all. Like in Idaho, where about 15% of the state is kept in such a condition. And there are no roads into them, the only way to enter is by air, horseback, or walking. That makes fighting the fires that break out there very difficult. Most of the massive fires we are seeing in states like California are actually not in such areas, many in fact are right near to towns like Paradise. Where selective clearing and removing of excess trees or dead-dying trees will make the areas more resistant to fire. And yes, California has a hell of a lot of wilderness and primitive areas also. But most of them are very remote and not where the major fires are happening. And it was not all that long ago that many of us remember the Forest Service actually encouraging letting fires in area like that burn until they went out on their own. Which actually does make sense, if it is a region that either has periodically had ground level fires, or intelligent management of the area so that the fires started stayed at ground level and did not have excessive amounts of dead wood and brush to allow it to jump to the canopy. Many species have to have fire in order to reproduce, and have evolved in an ecosystem where occasional fires are expected and healthy. But when man stops all the fires and does not replace it with managing the areas themselves, that is a recipe for disaster.
Yep. Fire suppression in many areas has caused fire problems. Now we get large canopy fires instead of undergrowth clearing ground fires. We always think we know better than nature how to create or manage ecosystems. And humans seem to collectively HATE trees. Always have, probably always will.
Oh, that is fairly well known. Just like today, most fires in that time period were natural, lightning strikes being a major cause. And as most areas would experience fire every decade or so, there was not a lot of brush built up to burn so they mostly stayed at ground level and swept up the debris on the ground and did not affect the trees themselves all that often. And of course the Indians set them themselves. Meadows are natural magnets for deer and other animals that they hunted, so creating scattered meadows in a forest was beneficial for both the humans as well as the animals. And of course in North America, in the forested areas of North America like the NE they were just starting to advance to a stage of agriculture that the earliest examples of "slash and burn" farming was happening. But those were all still rather small, as the population density did not mandate much land in order to do such. And instead of how it is done today, the tribes were more likely to slash and burn an area, then plant what they want to grow and move on. Moving to an area they had done that to a year before to harvest what had grown, and then returning to the one they burned that year in the next. Not really unlike how Europeans visiting islands across the world would release pigs, and plant citrus trees. Not to actually "farm", but they would largely grow wild so when they returned a few years later they could harvest what had grown. But the frequency of fire can also be easily proven in the sheer number of species (especially on the West Coast) that require fire in order to reproduce. The California Oak, the Sequoia and Redwood, the Lodgepole Pine, the Manzanita, all of those and more require fire in order to reproduce. And the exact same thing can be seen in Australia, as the Eucalyptus also requires fire. In fact, properties of that tree actually help the spreading of fires. That in their native environment helps keep out invading species, but also can be a disaster where it is not native (as was discovered in the Oakland Hills in 1991). I remember when the eucalyptus was seen almost everywhere in California. It was second just behind the Date Palm as the foreign tree that was planted everywhere in the state and iconic (yes, the Date Palm is not native to California and is literally an "invasive species" like the eucalyptus and tumbleweed). The government and cities used to actually encourage it, as it grows fairly fast and requires less water compared to native trees. At the turn of the 20th century the US Forest Service was planting them everywhere. However, the fact that the trees "explode" when they catch fire and spread their burning pitch in all directions was not considered, and now new planting is banned in many areas of the state, and thousands of the trees that were once a common sight are almost all gone.
Fire suppression is not a bad thing. However, if it is done it then becomes the task of humans to do the work that the fires did naturally. They then have to go into those areas, remove the dead brush and trees so ensure that if a fire does start it remains low to the ground and does not have large amounts of fuel to burn. I realized how bad that had gotten in California when I saw firebreaks all over that had become overgrown with decades worth of brush and young trees, so they could no longer fulfill their purpose. The Paradise fire blew right threw several firebreaks that likely would have stopped it, if they had simply been maintained.
I grew up around the timber industry in Colorado. My dad cut timber off and on for family friends that operated a saw mill. Their boy who I used to babysit now runs the operation. This saw mill guy has a friend who is a forest service employee. Somehow they get along even though they have opposing views on forestry and politics. One time the forest service guy confided to the saw mill guy that he had an unsolvable contradiction at work. They discovered there were a lot of snags in designated firebreaks that weren’t supposed to have any. But they had been left there because other regulations mandated a certain number of snags left per acre for compliance with wildlife laws. If the snags were removed, it was unlawful. And their existence in firebreaks was unlawful. Yep. If you don’t let nature do the work you are stuck with it. An old permaculture idiom goes “if you don’t want pigs you must do the pig’s work”. That’s true I’m the forest as well.
Open mind - means listening to the other side BEFORE you form your opinion. I have to say this continuing belief that somehow others will force you to think/act/behave in a manner that is not sligned with your own ideology is ……… well……interesting. Is it a product of listening to RW media in America?
Science tells us that your chromosomes determine your sex and your gender and that there are males and females and the relatively rare hermaphrodite and I know that's not politically correct anymore so maybe they call them amorphous.
Thanks! Yes I really didn’t expect many to actually watch the video but of course the same people are busy claiming that the mysterious “they” will somehow force them to believe in climate science whilst refusing to move on from the same old same old debunked myths. I mean, good grief! But there is even a thread on this board where people are claiming that co2 is not responsible for AGW
