Shock News From EPA Funded Study : All Forests Will Not Be Exactly The Same In 50 Years

13 Responses to Shock News From EPA Funded Study : All Forests Will Not Be Exactly The Same In 50 Years

1. Latitude says:

   March 23, 2011 at 9:22 pm

   “some type of change”………

   …..in 50 years????

   you think?

   Reply
2. MikeTheDenier says:

   March 23, 2011 at 9:34 pm

   Watchout Goddard. Gaggle will flag your site next…

   http://biggovernment.com/chorner/2011/03/23/the-evil-empire-strikes-back-google-flags-website-skeptical-of-global-warming/

   Reply
   • Latitude says:

     March 23, 2011 at 11:05 pm

     it’s war….

     everybody that stands to make money from global warming on one side…

     …and everyone that has to pay on the other

     Reply
3. Andy Weiss says:

   March 23, 2011 at 9:42 pm

   A large amount of drivel saying absolutely nothing.

   Reply
4. Ralph says:

   March 23, 2011 at 9:51 pm

   How much did this insightful study cost the tax payers?

   Reply
5. Ivan says:

   March 23, 2011 at 10:02 pm

   One hundred years ago – during a period of sanity – they looked through the other end of the telescope:

   “TREES AND CLIMATE.
   Forests are interstitially associated with the other factors which make up what is so loosely called “climate,” and they cannot be cut down or replanted without disturbing the existing equilibrium.”
   http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/57524061?
   ~20 March 1909

   Who’d a thunk it worked that way around??

   Reply
6. suyts says:

   March 23, 2011 at 11:32 pm

   Crichton wrote about this stuff in his “State of Fear” book.

   Anyone believing any part of nature should be static does not understand nature.

   In my best Sam Kinison impersonation……..AHHHHHH THE FREAKING FORESTS ARE SUPPOSE TO CHANGE!!!! YOU FREAKING WHACK JOBS!!! AAHHHHH…..AAAHHHHHHH!!!!

   Reply
7. Luke of the D says:

   March 24, 2011 at 12:16 am

   I think you guys are missing something… 1/7th to 2/3rd of the boreal forests… one seventh? Two thirds? Why those numbers? I mean, if I were a warmista (aka logic-denier) then I’d say… you know… all of the forests are going to change (because logically they are… nature proves that, change happens all the bloody time… and humans do affect that also – see New Zealand for a good example of that or all of the eastern USA for that matter). But the results of this study suggest only 1/7 up to 2/3 will be affected?

   Reply
   • Latitude says:

     March 24, 2011 at 12:22 am

     Luke, they’re just using double speak to hedge their bets…
     ..it’s like the weathermen saying there’s a 50% chance of rain

     Reply
     • Luke of the D says:

       March 24, 2011 at 12:54 am

       I get that Mr. Latitude… but still 1/7 to 2/3 (and why fractions? Who uses fractions!?!)? Why add error to a silly point like this that cannot possibly disproven – again, climate change – the real thing caused by nature and written in the sands of time, not the silly thing made up by the Goracle and his lackys – has effected forests forever… so why give such silly figures?.

       Reply
     • suyts says:

       March 24, 2011 at 1:05 am

       Luke,

       For the simple minded, it lends a level a validity. When they see real numbers and not some abstract thought, they tend to buy into it. It’s a common ploy by the warmistas.

       “1/3 of the Amazon is in peril within 10 years if the drought persists!!!” It sounds more alarming than if it doesn’t rain much in the Amazon for the next 10 years, some of its trees will be stressed.

       Now, where they came up with that “1\7” ratio, its anybodies guess. Probably sounded better than 14%.

       Reply
     • Luke of the D says:

       March 24, 2011 at 1:21 am

       Mr. suyts… are you calling me simple minded, sir!? Just kidding, I get you and I get the Mr. Latitude’s points, but still, very silly wording. Very silly indeed.

       Reply
     • suyts says:

       March 24, 2011 at 1:28 am

       Yes, it is very silly wording.

       BTW, I thank you for the term of address, but it is just “suyts”, or James. Nice to meet you, Luke.

       Reply