New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

[Azred]

When I think "rainforest" I think Amazon-type forests; the ones here are temperate...but let's not split hairs.

This is where I differ from Timber--I dislike reacting out of fear, which is how the Chicken Littles think. They always assume the worst will happen when that usually isn't the case. Even if the worst does happen, I would rather deal with the consequences and say "okay, we won't do that again" rather than spend my life worrying about a bunch of "what ifs".

What if a meteor hits the Earth tomorrow? What if some crazy crashes my truck on the way home and I die in a flaming wreck? What if I have a heart attack tonight? What if, what if, what if.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis Ah,yes, the old tired argument that the sky didn't fall so you must be right. Or, maybe.... the more likely truth is that Brazil and other S. Am. countries cracked down on deforestation so as to avert catastrophe, at least to some degree. See, that's why chicken little's point out that the sky is falling -- so someone can help stop it.

No more tired than the argument that chicken little saved the forest by pointing at the sky.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis Or, maybe.... the more likely truth is that Brazil and other S. Am. countries cracked down on deforestation so as to avert catastrophe, at least to some degree.

Not according to the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010 they didn't.

Let's at least put the blame where it belongs shall we?

Africa and S America (particularly Brazil) still show steadily declining forested acreage, and Australia has ratched up deforestation as well. Asia is a mixed bag. China shows an increase in forested acreage and SE Asia shows decreases in acreage.

North and Central America show a net increase in forested acreage from 2005 to 2010. That's primarily due to reforestation efforts in the US. Canada was neutral and Central America lost acreage.

Europe (primarily Russia) and Asia (predominantly China and India to a lesser extent) also showed increases in forested area due to reforestation efforts.



The whole report is here:

http://foris.fao.org/static/data/fra...indings-en.pdf

And all the charts are here:

http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/62219/en/

Almost forgot, Africa, S. America and Asia use a significant portion of that timber for fuel. In Europe and N America it's ~80% for building materials

[Azred]

Originally Posted by Cerek No more tired than the argument that chicken little saved the forest by pointing at the sky.

When is Chicken Little ever proved to be correct? At what point has the sky fallen? Answer: the Chicken Littles can never be correct because the sky will always fall at some undetermined point in the future and they keep pushing out the dates or changing the criteria that determine when the sky has fallen.

Consider the change from "global warming" to "climate change". Too much rain? Oh, that's climate change and is caused by man. Too little rain? Oh, that's climate change and is caused by man. Does your rainfall match the average for the last 50 years? Oh, at some point climate change will kick in and then you'll have either too much or too little rain but they really aren't sure which it will be. The situation has been set up so nebulously that they can never be wrong. If we disagree with them they say "then prove us to be wrong" but you can't--you can't disprove an entire range of outcome scenarios.

[SpiritWarrior]

This thread is a testeament to recycling.

I still don't see why heeding the words of the most brilliant minds of our time is such an issue for those who choose not to. Let 'em get on with saving the world imo. Look at it this way, if they turn out to be right all along, you owe them a "thank you". If they don't, you owe them nothing. Either dismiss it or don't. *shrug*

[machinehead]

Originally Posted by Cerek I didn't realize the Pacific Northwest rainforest was being burnt and strip-mined like the South American ones. Oh well, no matter. No reason to let a few trivial facts get in the way of some good rhetoric.

Where did I say this??? Azred said we didn't have any rainforests to cut/burn and I just pointed out the trivial fact that we do have them.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior This thread is a testeament to recycling. I still don't see why heeding the words of the most brilliant minds of our time is such an issue for those who choose not to. Let 'em get on with saving the world imo. Look at it this way, if they turn out to be right all along, you owe them a "thank you". If they don't, you owe them nothing. Either dismiss it or don't. *shrug*

Just because someone is a GCC scientist doesn't make him/her one of the most brilliant minds of our time....especially when the actions of some of the more prominent GCC scientists could be considered questionable at best. Some of them have shown they are more interested in saving their status than saving the world. There is also the fact that, even if GW is occurring, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of the world is imminent. It just means the world may be undergoing a change that we need to be aware of and we need to determine what measures (if any) we can or should take to either reduce the impact of these changes or adapt to them the best we can.

TL has admitted environmental scientists often use the Chicken Little cry of "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" and then claim the only reason it didn't fall is because they raised the alarm high enough and loud enough to prompt action that prevented it. Unfortunately, that claim can often be contradicted by facts and data, like it was in this thread.

Meanwhile, when the sky doesn't fall after all, skeptics tend to be like the villagers in the boy that cried "Wolf" and think "It wasn't really happening last time, so there is no reason to think that it is happening now." In the end, the Chicken Little approach undermines the credibility of the scientists, whether they are brilliant or not.

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis Maybe you were being a bit naive. http://www.envirowiki.info/Old_growt...ific_northwest http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0302-coal-nasa.html Ah,yes, the old tired argument that the sky didn't fall so you must be right. Or, maybe.... the more likely truth is that Brazil and other S. Am. countries cracked down on deforestation so as to avert catastrophe, at least to some degree. See, that's why chicken little's point out that the sky is falling -- so someone can help stop it.

It's funny, but Cerek took the words right off my fingers. I don't think of Chicken Little when I think about the run of the mill GCC science, I do think of the boy that cried wolf. They've been wrong so many times that when they are right, it's likely nobody will notice, except for the members of the Universal Church of Climate Change, who sincerely believe that they've been right every time, despite not having an Ice Age in the '70's, despite not having a record year for violent storms, etc etc etc.

Originally Posted by Cerek Just because someone is a GCC scientist doesn't make him/her one of the most brilliant minds of our time....especially when the actions of some of the more prominent GCC scientists could be considered questionable at best. Some of them have shown they are more interested in saving their status than saving the world. There is also the fact that, even if GW is occurring, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of the world is imminent. It just means the world may be undergoing a change that we need to be aware of and we need to determine what measures (if any) we can or should take to either reduce the impact of these changes or adapt to them the best we can. TL has admitted environmental scientists often use the Chicken Little cry of "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" and then claim the only reason it didn't fall is because they raised the alarm high enough and loud enough to prompt action that prevented it. Unfortunately, that claim can often be contradicted by facts and data, like it was in this thread. Meanwhile, when the sky doesn't fall after all, skeptics tend to be like the villagers in the boy that cried "Wolf" and think "It wasn't really happening last time, so there is no reason to think that it is happening now." In the end, the Chicken Little approach undermines the credibility of the scientists, whether they are brilliant or not.

Took the concept right off my fingers. Some of the "scientists" doing GCC research are no better than some of the quacks they summarily dismiss.

As a side note here, I don't think predicting things that don't happen makes one brilliant. Considering the legitimate scientific advances in our time, I don't think "playing craps" with science compares to the invention of rocket science, or the significant advances in the medical sciences. Hell, the advances in computer technology over the last 50 years overshadows anything that is being passed on as science in GCC. I'm reminded of an old addage I heard back when I was in school: Those that can, do. Those that can't teach. Considering most of the people sitting on the panel that is considered the authoritative resource for GCC information are teachers, that do none of their own research speaks volumes. Not that most of those guys aren't smarter than me, mind you, they were smart enough to get jobs as yes men that pay them significantly more than I made when I was working.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cerek Just because someone is a GCC scientist doesn't make him/her one of the most brilliant minds of our time....especially when the actions of some of the more prominent GCC scientists could be considered questionable at best. Some of them have shown they are more interested in saving their status than saving the world. There is also the fact that, even if GW is occurring, it doesn't necessarily mean the end of the world is imminent. It just means the world may be undergoing a change that we need to be aware of and we need to determine what measures (if any) we can or should take to either reduce the impact of these changes or adapt to them the best we can. TL has admitted environmental scientists often use the Chicken Little cry of "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" and then claim the only reason it didn't fall is because they raised the alarm high enough and loud enough to prompt action that prevented it. Unfortunately, that claim can often be contradicted by facts and data, like it was in this thread. Meanwhile, when the sky doesn't fall after all, skeptics tend to be like the villagers in the boy that cried "Wolf" and think "It wasn't really happening last time, so there is no reason to think that it is happening now." In the end, the Chicken Little approach undermines the credibility of the scientists, whether they are brilliant or not.

Well, they are the best scientists in the world. Nobody says "I want to be a GCC scientists when I get older".

But anyways, let's say they're wrong, they cry wolf. It's not happening, the climate is unaffected etc. etc. What does it do for you personally regardless of outcome? Unless you have a handsome sum bet on your own ideas.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Well, they are the best scientists in the world. Nobody says "I want to be a GCC scientists when I get older".

They may or may not be the best scientists in the world studying climatology, but even if they are, that doesn't mean they are the best scientists in the world overall, nor are they automatically the most brilliant minds of our time - as you keep calling them. Many people would consider Bill Gates and Michael Dell to be equally brilliant, not to mention the many scientists that focus their efforts in the medical and pharmaceutical fields as well as the surgeons that develop groundbreaking procedures to heal the injured. Are GCC scientists intelligent? Of course they are. Does that make them the most brilliant minds on the planet? Not necessarily. There are many other minds that could be considered equally brilliant, if not moreso, even though they focus their efforts in other areas.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior But anyways, let's say they're wrong, they cry wolf. It's not happening, the climate is unaffected etc. etc. What does it do for you personally regardless of outcome? Unless you have a handsome sum bet on your own ideas.

Me personally? Not so much either way. The more appropriate question would be to ask what does the outcome do personally for those involved in the research and analysis? Given the documented manipulation of data and the outright refusal to share their data (both of which run completely contrary to standard scientific practices), it would seem at least some of the scientists involved have an interest that is more personal than academic.

I also like the fact that, when the doomsday predictions fail, the Chicken Little standard response is "Well, ok, maybe the sky isn't falling after all, but what would it hurt to act as if it were, just in case?"