Accountability Now Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 I am not a beetle biologist, or a forestry scientist... read the journal articles. They will tell you more than you have ever needed to know about the pine beetle and why it has spread. On your point regarding temperatures; where the pine forests are in BC have often been cold enough to control the beetle. That's why it hadn't spread. This isn't an issue in the lower mainland where there aren't pine forests. The fact sheet I linked to has this information. Why didn't you just read it? Why are you asking me this again? Like you, I'm not a beetle biologist or a forestry scientist either. As I stated I don't really care about the beetle, so when you present a link for basic facts about beetles I assumed it had nothing to do with temperatures that kill them. Sorry. Should have read it. With that said, -35 consistantly....how many places in BC get -35 consistently....other than the north parts? I'm just saying that the whole pine beetle thing is a bit of a stretch to say its all on global warming. Quote
The_Squid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Like you, I'm not a beetle biologist or a forestry scientist either. As I stated I don't really care about the beetle, so when you present a link for basic facts about beetles I assumed it had nothing to do with temperatures that kill them. Sorry. Should have read it. With that said, -35 consistantly....how many places in BC get -35 consistently....other than the north parts? I'm just saying that the whole pine beetle thing is a bit of a stretch to say its all on global warming. Clearly you have not read a single scholarly article about the pine beetle and have come up with your conclusion before you have actually done any research... Google scholar.... do a search... actually read some relevant articles... make your conclusions based upon what the experts have determined. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted March 3, 2014 Author Report Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) Waldo for the fourth time - I'm simply asking that you give the courtesy of answering the question of this topic. What is your position? Do you believe that 97% of scientists who work in climate-related fields are of the opinion that human activities are the driving force behind Climate Change warming? I've gone out of my way to answer your question about what I think the consensus is all about. If you don't like my answer - that I don't believe there is a broad consensus that agrees on specific and pointed questions - then that's your problem - but at least you know where I stand. You argue vehementlyagainst criticism of the 97% consensus - yet you tap-dance around endorsing it Why are you so reluctant/afraid to answer such a straight forward question? Edited March 3, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
The_Squid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Why does it matter if the media ran with 97% but that it is incorrect? Clearly there is a scientific consensus, whatever the % is... Maybe you should search for more accurate figures and present those.... 87%? 92%? 20%? What does it really matter what Waldo thinks it is? Waldo presented a table that actually have some documented figures showing the number of research papers that confirm the consensus... that's the closest thing to evidence that I have seen in this thread. But like I mentioned earlier... if you want to know what scientists think about a topic, whatever it is, go read the actual journal articles... What does it matter what non-experts think about AGW? Let's actually look at what the science is... and anyone who does some reading on the topic, and can look at any issue from a non-political viewpoint, can draw their own conclusions. If you are going to get your speaking points from politicians and faux science/scientists... well.... garbage in, garbage out. Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Clearly you have not read a single scholarly article about the pine beetle and have come up with your conclusion before you have actually done any research... Google scholar.... do a search... actually read some relevant articles... make your conclusions based upon what the experts have determined. I've barely heard about the pine beetle before another MLW poster decided that the increased numbers was an example of an actual (versus theoretical) effect of global warming. I couldn't care to know anything more than what I've already posted here which is: 1. The recent outbreak is attributed to the large increase in pine population versus the last outbreak 2. The 1-2 degrees that global warming has attributed to the cause doesn't seem to matter in killing off these guys as the extremes in most of these areas (record lows) are barely around that -35 range which is needed. How would one expect to get -35 for a series of days on an annual basis? This points to the large pine increase as being the dominant factor. Its pretty clear that you don't really care either way but to use this as your landmark 'actual' example is fairly weak. Quote
waldo Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Simple, as the originator of 2 threads on this subject (now merged) you... you... have an obligation to: 1 - explicitly state/define your interpretation of what you're so unaccepting of. We've come a ways with you actually providing comment, but only inference can be applied to attempt to qualify your interpretation. More pointedly, your comments come more in the shape of asking if one accepts a reference you're speaking to. That is not you... you... qualifying your position, your interpretation of the consensus. 2 - state why you're not accepting to "whatever your interpretation of the consensus is". Linking to denier sourced articles from the likes of Solomon/Taylor doesn't cut it here. 3 - either substantiate an alternative consensus interpretation you hold, or advise you're simply against the consensus (again, 'whatever your interpretation of the consensus is') and you can't provide a substantiated alternative. as member 'The_Squid' suggests, your ongoing junkyard dog act is meaningless. The onus is on you to qualify your 2 threads (now merged)... you do know what you're actually railing against, right? Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Why does it matter if the media ran with 97% but that it is incorrect? Clearly there is a scientific consensus, whatever the % is... Maybe you should search for more accurate figures and present those.... 87%? 92%? 20%? What does it really matter what Waldo thinks it is? Waldo presented a table that actually have some documented figures showing the number of research papers that confirm the consensus... that's the closest thing to evidence that I have seen in this thread. Actually more accurate figures were presented through Michael Hardner's wikipedia link showing a number of other studies that ranged from 82%-97%. I'm willing to accept that range but other posters are not. As for the waldo's study, I also pointed out how a certain percentage of the papers who were undecided were left out of the equation. If you add those numbers back in then even this study is back down to 82%. No problem in accepting a high number but to back 97% as the end all and be all is just ridiculous. Quote
waldo Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 to use this as your landmark 'actual' example is fairly weak. with this recent revelation that you've not looked at any other papers/research/information... other than that provided within the single study offered (to which you provided an update to), it would seem rather obvious that you rely entirely on a single study; i.e., your own "landmark" example. Is that, as you say, being strong... or 'fairly weak'? Quote
waldo Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Actually more accurate figures were presented through Michael Hardner's wikipedia link showing a number of other studies that ranged from 82%-97%. I'm willing to accept that range but other posters are not. As for the waldo's study, I also pointed out how a certain percentage of the papers who were undecided were left out of the equation. If you add those numbers back in then even this study is back down to 82%. No problem in accepting a high number but to back 97% as the end all and be all is just ridiculous. no - again, you never qualified what those lower numbers within the graphic image related to. You were advised of this and challenged to do so. Speaking of ridiculous, this your latest comment on the peer-reviewed survey/study is exactly that... papers qualified as having 'no position' are exactly that... you don't get to simply, as you suggest, add them back in, to realize a lower number you're more accepting to. Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 with this recent revelation that you've not looked at any other papers/research/information... other than that provided within the single study offered (to which you provided an update to), it would seem rather obvious that you rely entirely on a single study; i.e., your own "landmark" example. Is that, as you say, being strong... or 'fairly weak'? no - again, you never qualified what those lower numbers within the graphic image related to. You were advised of this and challenged to do so. Speaking of ridiculous, this your latest comment on the peer-reviewed survey/study is exactly that... papers qualified as having 'no position' are exactly that... you don't get to simply, as you suggest, add them back in, to realize a lower number you're more accepting to. Sorry...I don't deal with dishonest posters. Please keep your comments to yourself or to other posters who will actually engage your dishonest approach. Quote
waldo Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Sorry...I don't deal with dishonest posters. Please keep your comments to yourself or to other posters who will actually engage your dishonest approach. you can choose to ignore them. And again, as repeated, please refrain from your repeated accusatory labeling of me as being dishonest. Again, I've not provided anything within this thread to support your repeated accusations. Please cease and desist! Quote
waldo Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 fast facts concerning the mountain pine-beetle - studies have shown that: - in certain locales, warmer temperatures have enabled beetles to produce 2 generations/year rather than in the past where 1 generation was the norm. - in certain locales, also linked to changing climate, drought stress is reducing trees inherent abilities to attempt to resist infestation. - in certain locales, warmer temperatures extend upon the beetle range by opening up expansion to higher elevations and more northerly locations.- dead trees killed by beetles cause more/quicker ambient snow melting, further exacerbating drought impacts relative to runoff dependencies. - dead trees killed by beetles exacerbate the shift from forests acting as carbon sinks to those acting as carbon sources (via decaying/burning). Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 you can choose to ignore them. And again, as repeated, please refrain from your repeated accusatory labeling of me as being dishonest. Again, I've not provided anything within this thread to support your repeated accusations. Please cease and desist! You can choose to ignore my comments as well. Quote
waldo Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 You can choose to ignore my comments as well. yes, if inclined... I can so choose. No comment on the fast facts grouping... or is that you choosing not to comment? If you're choosing not to comment, no need to reply. Quote
The_Squid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 2. The 1-2 degrees that global warming has attributed to the cause doesn't seem to matter in killing off these guys as the extremes in most of these areas (record lows) are barely around that -35 range which is needed. How would one expect to get -35 for a series of days on an annual basis? This points to the large pine increase as being the dominant factor. Then you don't know the Chilcotin area at all. 1-2 is an average. Don't confuse average annual temperatures with other measures. Severe winter colds no longer occur, when they certainly have in the recent past. Again, read the papers... all your questions are answered. Don't make conclusions before you learn about the topic. Quote
Keepitsimple Posted March 3, 2014 Author Report Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) Simple, as the originator of 2 threads on this subject (now merged) you... you... have an obligation to: 1 - explicitly state/define your interpretation of what you're so unaccepting of. We've come a ways with you actually providing comment, but only inference can be applied to attempt to qualify your interpretation. More pointedly, your comments come more in the shape of asking if one accepts a reference you're speaking to. That is not you... you... qualifying your position, your interpretation of the consensus. 2 - state why you're not accepting to "whatever your interpretation of the consensus is". Linking to denier sourced articles from the likes of Solomon/Taylor doesn't cut it here. 3 - either substantiate an alternative consensus interpretation you hold, or advise you're simply against the consensus (again, 'whatever your interpretation of the consensus is') and you can't provide a substantiated alternative. as member 'The_Squid' suggests, your ongoing junkyard dog act is meaningless. The onus is on you to qualify your 2 threads (now merged)... you do know what you're actually railing against, right? Waldo - it's not that I don't believe there is a consensus - it's that I believe if one was honestly measured, it would be much, much lower than 97% - and that's the intent of this topic - as it was back in 2011. Here's a link to a study that Tim G. previously provided. What does it tell us? Well, first of all, there's that 97% figure again in response to where temperatures had gone up in the last century - but the surprising thing is that it's not 100%. Of more relevance to this topic is the fact that "only" 84% agreed that APG warming was occurring. But a further 5% agreed that although APG warming was occurring, it was not significant. That would bring the "consensus" down to 79%. One could make further arguments within that 79% as to what constitutes "significant" and perhaps another one based on Academia's natural bias - or perhaps therir traditional Left-wing bias. But I digress. I'll just stick with my opinion that there is not a 97% consensus - but one that has been reasonably ascertained to be 79% and is likely - even very likely to be lower if the questions are framed around a clear and present danger that requires immediate and extreme action - because 44% of the respondents thought that there was a less than 50-50 chance that temperatures would rise by two degrees by 2100. Are you now willing to quantify your understanding of what consensus is out there - or do you cling to the vague 97% figure that has been shown to be...... shall we say, a little mis-leading? 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.“There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years. http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/structure-scientific-opinion-climate-change/#sthash.smQ4Xp1B.dpuf Edited March 3, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
The_Squid Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 If you choose your own conclusion prior to reading this, then I can't really help you and discussion will be pointless, but take a look at this on your point #2 about temperatures: winter minimum temperaturesin Quesnel and Prince George have increased dramatically over the past 50 years. http://www.pacificclimate.org/sites/default/files/publications/Werner.ClimateChangeCaribooChilcotin.Sep2008.pdf Quote
Accountability Now Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 yes, if inclined... I can so choose. No comment on the fast facts grouping... or is that you choosing not to comment? If you're choosing not to comment, no need to reply. Choosing to not engage a dishonest member. Again...you don't link anything of where you got your facts or your ability to back them up. Of course, me asking 4-5 times for them won't do anything. Quote
waldo Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Here's a link to a study that Tim G. previously provided. the full study, as linked, is behind a paywall; as such, (unless you have access to a full copy), you're relying on a journalist's interpretation of that study... one given at the highest levels. you've still not defined what you interpret the consensus to be. What scientists... what type of scientists are outside the 97%... what is their expertise, how related/relevant to climate science is it, what do they work in, do they publish, what have they published, how recent have they published, how much have they published? Quote
waldo Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 Choosing to not engage a dishonest member. Again...you don't link anything of where you got your facts or your ability to back them up. Of course, me asking 4-5 times for them won't do anything. the 'fast fact' grouping is offered as a waldo board service, one backed by multiple studies... you can choose to ignore it. again, you persist in labeling me as dishonest. Again, please stop this... you have been repeatedly asked to do so. Quote
waldo Posted March 3, 2014 Report Posted March 3, 2014 BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations: Mountain Pine Beetle Infestation: animation => cumulative percentage of pine killed: - observed: 1999 to 2012 - projected: 2013 to 2020 Quote
Keepitsimple Posted March 3, 2014 Author Report Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) the full study, as linked, is behind a paywall; as such, (unless you have access to a full copy), you're relying on a journalist's interpretation of that study... one given at the highest levels. Forget it Waldo. You obviously refuse to consider any other point of view. I took you off ignore because this was my own topic and I owed you the courtesy of engagement. But you're the same old Waldo. You had the opportunity to show some contrition - in an area that truly is contentious. I take no pleasure in having schooled you once again (as you might say).....this time in your refusing to accept anything less than a 97% consensus that humans have been the driving force behind Climate Change. It's disappointing, if not cowardly that you would show such disdain yet refuse to step up and simply state what you believe - and if that means clinging to the 97%, then so be it - that's your right. You're the poster-boy for all that's wrong with the Alarmist community. Back on ignore. Edited March 4, 2014 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
waldo Posted March 4, 2014 Report Posted March 4, 2014 you've still not defined what you interpret the consensus to be. What scientists... what type of scientists are outside the 97%... what is their expertise, how related/relevant to climate science is it, what do they work in, do they publish, what have they published, how recent have they published, how much have they published? Forget it Waldo. You obviously refuse to consider any other point of view. I took you off ignore because this was my own topic and I owed you the courtesy of engagement. But you're the same old Waldo. You had the opportunity to show some contrition - in an area that truly is contentious. I take no pleasure in having schooled you once again (as you might say).....this time in your refusing to accept anything less than a 97% consensus that humans have been the driving force behind Climate Change. It's disappointing, if not cowardly that you would show such disdain yet refuse to step up and simply state what you believe - and if that means clinging to the 97%, then so be it - that's your right. You're the poster-boy for all that's wrong with the Alarmist community. Back on ignore. no - as I detailed (per the following re-quote) the onus is on you, you have an obligation you refuse to accept... again, through both of your initiated threads (now merged), you have yet to explicitly state/define what your interpretation of the consensus is. You've been asked to provide this, over and over and over again. You refuse! You speak of engagement, yet you refuse to state what your interpretation of the consensus is. Is that your kind/degree of "engagement"? Amazing! Absolutely unbelievable that you can go the trouble of initiating both threads, of dropping post after post of nothingness, without you ever qualifying your own understanding, your own interpretation of what the consensus is, to you... what it means to you. so, you believe you've "schooled me"... that I wasn't contrite to your junkyard dog act... that I'm cowardly... that I'm the poster-boy! Looks like you've become a bit unnerved there, hey? Again, as you originated this topic twice, you had an obligation; the following obligation as outlined in the points below: Simple, as the originator of 2 threads on this subject (now merged) you... you... have an obligation to: 1 - explicitly state/define your interpretation of what you're so unaccepting of. We've come a ways with you actually providing comment, but only inference can be applied to attempt to qualify your interpretation. More pointedly, your comments come more in the shape of asking if one accepts a reference you're speaking to. That is not you... you... qualifying your position, your interpretation of the consensus. 2 - state why you're not accepting to "whatever your interpretation of the consensus is". Linking to denier sourced articles from the likes of Solomon/Taylor doesn't cut it here. 3 - either substantiate an alternative consensus interpretation you hold, or advise you're simply against the consensus (again, 'whatever your interpretation of the consensus is') and you can't provide a substantiated alternative. as member 'The_Squid' suggests, your ongoing junkyard dog act is meaningless. The onus is on you to qualify your 2 threads (now merged)... you do know what you're actually railing against, right? . Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted March 4, 2014 Report Posted March 4, 2014 I have been following this thread for a bit and I find it alarming how 'Keepitsimple' and 'Accountability Now' can get away with their accusations and insults towards Waldo. Now, perhaps I'm missing something because I haven't been here that long, but I see clear evidence of Waldo presenting facts and no evidence of what the other two are saying. Facts speak for themselves and facts have clearly been presented here. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 4, 2014 Report Posted March 4, 2014 Not really, as facts are actually in short supply around here. Yes, we have data from some sources, sometimes processed and presented as "analysis", opinions, conjecture, and spin. Note the trumpeted "projection" of pine trees killed. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.