Don, I agree with Steve. I had meet Shigo back in college and found his information sound? What doctrine are you referring too?
On Apr 13, 9:50 am, "Steven Springer" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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>- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
