Steve....I'm responding in SMALL CAPS IN THE BODY OF YOUR TEXT BELOW...All,
My objective(s) in raising this issue of Global Warming
before this board was to (1) recognize that the perceived consensus promoted is
not as wide spread as perhaps thought; WIDESPREAD ENOUGH THAT I FEEL THAT THE
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO YOUR ASSERTION THAT IT ISN’T, AND
THAT STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO DIMINISH OUR IMPACT ON THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE,
WATERS,
AND TERRAIN UNTIL WE CAN CONCLUSIVELY DETERMINE OTHERWISE... (2) the reliable
data (that which has not to have been
shown faulty) is not as conclusive to an applicable world-wide crisis WHILE
I HAVE PROVIDED A NUMBER OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL LOCATIONS THAT SUPPORT THE DATA,
FROM MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, THE LIST OF OTHER ANECDOTAL ACCOUNTS IN
ACADEMIC PERIODICALS (READ CURRENT REPUTABLE, REPLICABLE SCIENTIFIC SOURCES) IS
SO WIDE SPREAD (READ ’GLOBAL’) AS TO BE ACCEPTED AS CONCLUSIVE ENOUGH, NOT TO
CONTINUE WITH A “MAINTAIN STATUS QUO”AND DON’T BOTHER CHANGING OUR ILL-ADVISED,
ENVIRONMENT DESPOILING WAYS..
My experience regarding this “consensus gathering” has
been limited to those boots on the ground colleagues in the Forest Service, at
the Federal and State level (remain un-named to protect the innocent!). STEVE,
I STARTED WORKING FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES (BLM IN 1967; USFS IN 1969, NPS IN
1998)…AND
IT’S NOT BEEN SINCE 2002 THAT MY BOOTS (WHITE’S LOGGERS, FOR THE RECORD) DIDN’T
HIT THE GROUND EVERY DAY. I HAVE BEEN
ALTERNATELY A LAND SURVEYOR, A ROAD DESIGNER, A TIMBER MARKER, A GIS TECHNICIAN,
AND FINALLY A RESTORATION FORESTER. If
one chooses to research this issue deeper, there are many in the scientific
field at a world-wide scale that are very skeptical and will not mince words in
calling those who are convinced as fools! I’VE HEARD THIS SAID,
BUT I CAN’T IMAGINE THE STATE OF DENIAL THAT THEY MUST BE IN…IT IS WISE FOR
SCIENTIST TO BE SKEPTICAL, INDEED IT IS THE BASIS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO
QUESTION ASSUMPTIONS…BUT THE STATE OF DENIAL THAT COMES TO MY MIND THAT
REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS WOULD REFER TO THOSE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE PREPONDERANCE
OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MAN’S AUGMENTATION TO THE CAUSES OF THE GLOBAL
CLIMATE CHANGE CURRENTLY UNDERWAY, BEFUDDLES ME. It is common to be of the
opinion that only
the Rush Limbaughs’ and Sean Hannitys’ promote this skepticism, this is
erroneous. UNFORTUNATELY THEY ARE NOT A SMALL SOURCE OF THIS SKEPTICISM
I suppose that if a true consensus was conducted among us world-wide, the split
would lean more toward the skeptic rather than the convinced WE
REALLY DIFFER IN OUR PERCEPTION OF THE WORLD HERE!!!; or at best
only half NOT EVEN CLOSE, PROVIDE YOUR FIGURES…. Does
this make morons of one side? NO, I AGREE THAT YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE
A MORON TO BE IN DENIAL…No, this reveals an effective argument
for conclusion has not been made. NOT TRUE, AN REPUATABLE AND
REPLICABLE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE…IT’S JUST THAT APPARENTLY THE OVERWHELMING
SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS HASN’T BEEN EFFECTIVE WITH YOU, AND OTHER INTRANSIGENT
SKEPTICS… So, why aren’t more speaking freely regarding their
opposition? It is recognized as politically correct and job-safe to remain
silent or non-committal. THROUGHOUT MY UNHERALDED CAREERS, I
FUNCTIONED AS AN AGENT OF CHANGE, DIDN’T REMAIN SILENT, AND NO ONE WHO KNOWS ME
WOULD ACCUSE ME OF BEING NON-COMMITAL…I’M NOT TAKING THIS PERSONALLY, MERELY
REBUTTING YOUR ASSUMPTION. AS I’M SURE,
MANY ON THIS FORUM WOULD, WERE THEY NOT AS OUTSPOKEN AS I…;>}
Much of the data (not all) presented has been refuted or
shown to be flawed (the “hockey-stick” analogy for instance). We all
recognize that conflicting data or that which reveals itself to be inclusive,
causes us to “fail to reject the null” in statistical probability. While
many have done well, detailed work concerning climate change and its cause and
effect, there still is not enough evidence to reach a sound conclusion
regarding a world-wide crisis. This fact is evident even in some of the
responses given on this post. STEVE, YOU STILL HAVE NOT RESPONDED
TO THE LEE FRELICH’S COMMENT…THIS ENTIRE PARAGRAPH PROVES YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO
CONSIDER INFORMATION NEW TO YOU, INFORMATION THAT ISN’T FLAWED, INFORMATION
THAT ISN’T CONFLICTING, AND NOT DOUBLE NEGATIVE GOBBLEDY GOOK ABOUT STATISTICAL
PROBABILITY. YOU’VE OTHERWISE SHOWN
SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE, FLAWED ONLY BY YOUR RELUCTANCE TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES.
So what is going on? Well, I do not have all the
answers. I can only critically examine that which is around me and the
works of others then make my surmising, like you. The reliable and conclusive
data that we have to this point reveals a sometimes volatile, variable and
inconsistent patterned planet. At a micro level we can sometimes
establish caused weather patterns, other times we cannot. At a macro
level, this is an ardent undertaking, which may be above the ability of mortal
man. There is much that we will probably never understand about our
natural world. Perhaps, we should consider that the world changes naturally
(coastlines, Greenland, et. al.) and without recognizable patterns and we are
unable to understand or explain. Is the United States in the early stages of
a collective micro climate change? Perhaps, is it because of our
doing or could it be part of an unexplainable natural process? We may
never have the answer.
READ LEE FRELICH’S POST, AND WE CAN
CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION…OTHERWISE WE’LL HAVE TO AGREE THAT YOU’RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO DISAGREE…THAT SAID, I AGREE, LET’S TALK TREES, AS I’VE SAID ALL I’M
GOING TO SAY, UNLESS IT’S TO DISCUSS THE FRELICH POST…
One of the main tenants of Global Warming is that man;
particularly those citizens of industrialized nations are to blame. It is
true that we can degrade our local environment, contribute a non-point
pollutant for our neighbors, or even manipulate weather patterns to a small
extent, at a micro level. But to make the assumption that “the way it is
in my backyard is conducive to the whole world” is a bit unfounded and
illogical. This one tenant in this issue perhaps draws the deepest battle
lines.
With all this said, I respectfully stand beside my
arguments as presented. As one who may appear to you as “crying from the
wilderness” regarding this issue, I am not beside myself among those in our
field.
I am new to this website and have come to enjoy it! Now,
we can move on to talk about the trees (large, champions) rather than the
forest! AS I’VE STATED ABOVE, I’M ALL FOR THAT…I HOPE YOU AREN’T ONE
OF THOSE ARBORISTS THAT SUBSCRIBES WHOLLY TO THE SHIGO DOCTRINE…;>}I'D ALSO
LIKE TO ADD THAT YOU'VE ACQUITTED YOURSELF WELL, SPOKEN RESPECTFULLY ABOUT
TOPICS THAT AREN'T ALWAYS UNIVERSALLY AGREED UPON, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR FORUM
PRESENCE.
SINCERELY,
DON
Respectfully
Steve
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_042009
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to [email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
