All, >From the "outside" looking in, these are my observations: Shigo brings up mixed feelings on this site due to the audaciously demeaning manner in which he was presented to our members by the author of the treedictionary site. With no apparent formal education in related fields other than attending Shigo seminars and then reading his past works (according to his own online resume), he went on to defiantly challenge practically every basic statement that ENTS members made in dialogues with him, and then insulted the professional credentials of anyone that entered into open debate with him. He would act as if he wanted to open a debate but was never really open to any true debate or open-mindedness - seemingly more interested in preaching in hopes of changing other people's minds with an unwillingness to even slightly evolve his own positions in the face of scientific facts. This went on to a much greater degree with him than the recent global warming "debate".
Please don't ask me to quote any specifics. The dialogues are all in either the google or topica history of ents. Paul J. On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Marcboston <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
