"Climategate" data not manipulated, Global Warming is real

[shira]

No it isn't, if you'd read the analysis of the climategate e-mails it's flat out proven.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/climategate_analysis.html

Read my lips: "widespread and typical." Where are the statistics to back up the allegation that suppression of opposing papers is widespread and typical?

 

[monovillage]

How many Journals that publish Climate Science papers do you think there are ?

 

[bfdd]

Amused - your lack of understanding the basic science here, and your ability to cling to faulty and dis-proven arguments - keep it coming, it's good entertainment.

You know - stuff like 'it's plant food', and my favorite today - 'the bit of CO2 that man is responsible for' - 29 billion tons - per year - is a 'bit'? Really?

Guess how many forests man has eliminated in the past 400 years? How about more than half of them? We wipe out 16 million hectares ( or just a bit - as you might say) - here's a stretch - fewer forests - less CO2 absorbed by plants?

You just don't get it - you think there is this big scam going on, and you and your right-wing cronies aren't going to fall for it - and you grasp at every little thing that has even the slightest hint of impropriety - and cling to it, even when it's discarded.

I can only guess how you would have been during the 'smoking is bad for your health' discussions, or the 'HIV causes AIDS' issues.

It's a fact that the earth has drastically (yes, in an historical sense) warmed in the past 90 years. It's a fact that the level of CO2 in the air has drastically increased.

The only issues undecided are what the impacta are going to be - we can model and estimate all we want, but only time will tell. I keep hearing the anti-GW crowd yapping it up about all the doom N' gloom predictions - but where are they exactly? Saying it's going to get warmer, and that in turn is going to cause more ice to melt - that's not exactly doom and gloom - it's basically just common sense

In the mean-time, morons like you hold up progress on things like alternative fuel sources, less pollution producing factories, less reliance on foreign fuel sources, cleaner air, etc....all because someone named Gore happened to be the first person in the political spotlight to champion the cause.

Finally - for the AT P&N geniuses that think they have the scientific solutions to global warming - please stop - climatologists have considered all of the possible impacts - that's their job - not someone who just read something on Wikipedia.

Destruction of Forests and Rain Forests is so goddamn over exaggerated. I thought we were beyond that bullshit celebrity charity shit already.

 

[Throckmorton]

Destruction of Forests and Rain Forests is so goddamn over exaggerated. I thought we were beyond that bullshit celebrity charity shit already.

Exaggerated how??

 

[Ozoned]

Why do you not think that man can influence the earth's climate? Obviously you think that 30 billion tons of CO2 does not matter. Would a trillion tons matter to you? 10 trillion?

Of the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, water vapor represents 95% of the greenhouse effect. Total atmospheric carbon dioxide represents 3.6% of the greenhouse effect. Humans contribute 3.2% of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide. The greenhouse effect of this contribution is 0.12%.

Link

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by bfdd
Destruction of Forests and Rain Forests is so goddamn over exaggerated. I thought we were beyond that bullshit celebrity charity shit already.

Exaggerated how??

x2

Yeah, how's it exaggerated?

Seems simple to me: Plants consume CO2, kill plants less CO2 is consumed. Solution: Stop killing plants etc.

Fern

 

[bfdd]

x2

Yeah, how's it exaggerated?

Seems simple to me: Plants consume CO2, kill plants less CO2 is consumed. Solution: Stop killing plants etc.

Fern

...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=1617

American Investigator Television found that only 12.5 percent of the original Amazon has been deforested, leaving 87.5 percent intact. Of the 12.5 percent deforested, one-third to one-half is fallow or in the process of regeneration, meaning that at any moment up to 94 percent of the total Amazon is in its natural state.

I was uh... 15 when this came out? I still remember it. We aren't really destroying that much forest.

oh here's another one http://www.cfact.org/a/141/The-rainforest-issue-Myths-and-facts

 

[Amused]

...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=1617


I was uh... 15 when this came out? I still remember it. We aren't really destroying that much forest.

oh here's another one http://www.cfact.org/a/141/The-rainforest-issue-Myths-and-facts

Doh!!!

Add that to the fact that not only does the US have MORE trees now than when NA was discovered, much of Europe that was deforested for ships and buildings in the middle and later ages has been replanted.

Only urban dwellers who rarely leave the city have the mistaken impression that the the Earth is being paved over. When, in fact, if you fly over it, you see just how green the Earth still is and how very little man's mark shows on it.

Not only that, but man is planting in areas where plants never grew before.

 

[NeoV]

"Add that to the fact that not only does the US have MORE trees now than when NA was discovered, much of Europe that was deforested for ships and buildings in the middle and later ages has been replanted."

ok, now it's pointless to even respond to you Amused - you have no clue about anything, let alone topics dealing with the planet earth.

The US has more trees now than it did when North America was 'discovered'?

That's the dumbest thing you've ever said on this forum - and that is saying something.

 

[Amused]

"Add that to the fact that not only does the US have MORE trees now than when NA was discovered, much of Europe that was deforested for ships and buildings in the middle and later ages has been replanted."

ok, now it's pointless to even respond to you Amused - you have no clue about anything, let alone topics dealing with the planet earth.

The US has more trees now than it did when North America was 'discovered'?

That's the dumbest thing you've ever said on this forum - and that is saying something.

While some forests have become smaller, tens of millions of trees have been planted in what was formally treeless prairie. Also, tree farming in the South has increased the number of trees.

Instead of dismissing it out of hand with knee-jerk insults, why not ask why I would make such a claim?

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bot00/bot00090.htm

Oops!

 

[ShawnD1]

http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/briefings-summaries-overviews/docs/ForestFactsMetric.pdf

It is estimated that—at the beginning of European settlement—
in 1630 the area of forest land that would become
the United States was 423 million hectares or about 46
percent of the total land area. By 1907, the area of forest
land had declined to an estimated 307 million hectares or
34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been relatively
stable since 1907. In 1997, 302 million hectares—
or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States—
was in forest land. Today’s forest land area amounts to
about 70 percent of the area that was forested in 1630.
Since 1630, about 120 million hectares of forest land
have been converted to other uses—mainly agricultural.
More than 75 percent of the net conversion to other uses
occurred in the 19th century.

 

[Hacp]

http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/briefings-summaries-overviews/docs/ForestFactsMetric.pdf

Funny how they mention area but not density.

 

[Amused]

http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/briefings-summaries-overviews/docs/ForestFactsMetric.pdf

Forest is NOT the only place you'll find trees.

In fact, in the South, a great many of the trees are in tree farms. That would not count as "forest" anymore. As in the west, a great many acres of land are NOT virgin forest anymore, so not counted by your quote, but STILL have trees. Many are tree farms as well.

And, as I said, there are tens of millions of trees growing in the great plains that were never there before.

So, you'll note I did not say "forest." I said "trees." And the point stands: There are more trees growing now than at the time of the discovery of this continent.

And my point on Europe stands as well: Virtually deforested at one time, much of it has been replanted.

 

[k3n]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36104206/ns/us_news-environment

you forgot to add discuss

 

[NeoV]

wait, you are serious about this now - so not only do global warming deniers not believe that man cause cause any change to our climate - they are now drinking the kool-aid that says deforestation isn't real?

this has gone from hilarious to downright sad

 

[Amused]

wait, you are serious about this now - so not only do global warming deniers not believe that man cause cause any change to our climate - they are now drinking the kool-aid that says deforestation isn't real?

this has gone from hilarious to downright sad

Well now. It's already been shown that our effect is miniscule, if at all when you consider % of total green house gasses.

As for "deforestation" that's a loaded term. Most will only consider VIRGIN forests when counting acres of forests. They do NOT count tree farms, regenerating forestland, urban trees, or the tens off millions of trees now growing where none were before. (Think great plains, Southern California, South West, etc...)

I posted the link, you refuse to believe the facts. What more can I do?

I have nothing to "deny" because nothing has been proven. Period. Sure, claims have been made, but when scrutinized, those claims prove to be FUD with no basis in fact.

 

[monovillage]

Read the "notes on terminology" in ShawnD1's link and you'll see the figures in it only refer to forest that is for commercial harvesting. It doesn't include "poor form" trees or smaller trees, and certainly doesn't include any urban, suburban, semi-rural or most rural trees.