Don,
IM ALL FOR THATI HOPE YOU ARENT ONE OF THOSE ARBORISTS THAT SUBSCRIBES WHOLLY TO THE SHIGO DOCTRINE;>} My curiosity is peaked, to what portion of the Shigo Doctrine do you refer? I am convinced of the Compartmentalization of Decay in Trees (CODIT) and the lateral pruning methods are sound. Steve -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of DON BERTOLETTE Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ENTS] Re: Even if you think it is a hoax 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 ISNT, AND THAT STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO DIMINISH OUR IMPACT ON THE EARTHS 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 QUOAND DONT 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 ITS NOT BEEN SINCE 2002 THAT MY BOOTS (WHITES LOGGERS, FOR THE RECORD) DIDNT 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! IVE HEARD THIS SAID, BUT I CANT IMAGINE THE STATE OF DENIAL THAT THEY MUST BE INIT IS WISE FOR SCIENTIST TO BE SKEPTICAL, INDEED IT IS THE BASIS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO QUESTION ASSUMPTIONSBUT 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 MANS 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 DONT HAVE TO BE A MORON TO BE IN DENIALNo, this reveals an effective argument for conclusion has not been made. NOT TRUE, AN REPUATABLE AND REPLICABLE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADEITS JUST THAT APPARENTLY THE OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS HASNT BEEN EFFECTIVE WITH YOU, AND OTHER INTRANSIGENT SKEPTICS So, why arent 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, DIDNT REMAIN SILENT, AND NO ONE WHO KNOWS ME WOULD ACCUSE ME OF BEING NON-COMMITALIM NOT TAKING THIS PERSONALLY, MERELY REBUTTING YOUR ASSUMPTION. AS IM 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 FRELICHS COMMENTTHIS ENTIRE PARAGRAPH PROVES YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO CONSIDER INFORMATION NEW TO YOU, INFORMATION THAT ISNT FLAWED, INFORMATION THAT ISNT CONFLICTING, AND NOT DOUBLE NEGATIVE GOBBLEDY GOOK ABOUT STATISTICAL PROBABILITY. YOUVE 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 FRELICHS POST, AND WE CAN CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSIONOTHERWISE WELL HAVE TO AGREE THAT YOURE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DISAGREETHAT SAID, I AGREE, LETS TALK TREES, AS IVE SAID ALL IM GOING TO SAY, UNLESS ITS 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 IVE STATED ABOVE, IM ALL FOR THATI HOPE YOU ARENT 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. Check it out. <http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_04200 9> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
