How media over-represents 15 times climatosceptiks fake science

[Alan Klein]

Precisely.  It’s not just the trees. Tropical rainforests apparently represent some of the planet’s most biodiverse regions. Even more diverse than Alan’s yard.

I think I take better care of my yard than the Brazilians take care of their Amazon.

[Peter McLennan]

Yet today, I believe the forests are bigger than they were back then.

You "believe" ?  What is that?  Faith-based forestry?
I suggest you have a look at British Columbia forest cover on Google Earth.

[Peter McLennan]

Red Herring #1

You mean the same ones who invest billions in alternative energy sources? And lead the research in those areas?

Some do, yes.  And so they keep telling us in their advertising.  They're not the only ones doing so, however.

Red Herring #2

I suppose you have stopped using fossil fuel - derived products?

Few have stopped entirely.  Many are significantly reducing consumption. Me among them.

[Robert Roaldi]

I think I take better care of my yard than the Brazilians take care of their Amazon.

You might want to be more circumspect about pointing that particular finger.

[Alan Klein]

You "believe" ?  What is that?  Faith-based forestry?
I suggest you have a look at British Columbia forest cover on Google Earth.

Whatever.

[Alan Klein]

You might want to be more circumspect about pointing that particular finger.

Whatever.

[PeterAit]

Whatever.

Use of the answer "whatever" is reserved for those with age < 15 and  IQ < 90. And I bet that will be your answer to me (or you will have considered it). How witty.

[LesPalenik]

Furthermore, the two whatevers could have been packed into just one post

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Use of the answer "whatever" is reserved for those with age < 15 and  IQ < 90.

Alan was just trying to blend in with the alarmist crowd.

[Alan Klein]

Whatever.   What a powerful,  time saving way to respond to silly or insulting posts and non sequiturs.

[Peter McLennan]

Whatever.   What a powerful,  time saving way to respond to silly or insulting posts and non sequiturs.

What was insulting about asking you to view the state of deforestation in BC ?

[Alan Klein]

You "believe" ?  What is that?  Faith-based forestry?
...

Whatever. 


Everyone here "believes" what they post.  No reason for you to be condescending to my beliefs. 

[James Clark]

Whatever. 


Everyone here "believes" what they post.  No reason for you to be condescending to my beliefs.

Surely you see the difference here though?  You may have an understanding that there is more forest now than there was x years ago - you "believe" that to be true, but that's not really an opinion that's unknowable, and it *could* be incorrect.  Simply because you "believe" it makes it neither correct nor valid.

I can "believe" Donald Trump is a racist.  "Racist" is an inherently subjective term, and you and I can point to evidence, debate it, and come to perhaps equally valid conclusions.

On the other hand, I can "believe" that Donald Trump is honest, and doesn't lie incessantly, but that's not really a valid belief, because it's factually and consistently demonstrated otherwise.  Just because I "believe" it doesn't make it a correct belief or a belief worthy of respect.

Back to the original contention, it's my understanding as well that total forested ground cover is indeed greater than it has been in the industrialized past.  What I also understand though, is that old-growth forests have been replaced by plantings that are not as conducive to biodiversity, and so the claim that we have more forests now comes with a huge caveat.   That's my *understanding* and it could be wrong; it's not really a "belief" that's valid simply because I really really think it's true.

Dig?

[Alan Klein]

Surely you see the difference here though?  You may have an understanding that there is more forest now than there was x years ago - you "believe" that to be true, but that's not really an opinion that's unknowable, and it *could* be incorrect.  Simply because you "believe" it makes it neither correct nor valid.

I can "believe" Donald Trump is a racist.  "Racist" is an inherently subjective term, and you and I can point to evidence, debate it, and come to perhaps equally valid conclusions.

On the other hand, I can "believe" that Donald Trump is honest, and doesn't lie incessantly, but that's not really a valid belief, because it's factually and consistently demonstrated otherwise.  Just because I "believe" it doesn't make it a correct belief or a belief worthy of respect.

Back to the original contention, it's my understanding as well that total forested ground cover is indeed greater than it has been in the industrialized past.  What I also understand though, is that old-growth forests have been replaced by plantings that are not as conducive to biodiversity, and so the claim that we have more forests now comes with a huge caveat.   That's my *understanding* and it could be wrong; it's not really a "belief" that's valid simply because I really really think it's true.

Dig?

His comment was a put-down. 

[James Clark]

His comment was a put-down.

I don't believe it was

[LesPalenik]

Sometimes, people can be very mean.
Like when that nasty Danish Prime Minister said that the idea of buying Greenland was absurd. She really hurt Donald's feelings.

[James Clark]

Sometimes, people can be very mean.
Like when that nasty Danish Prime Minister said that the idea of buying Greenland was absurd. She really hurt Donald's feelings.

Which is really tragic and so unfair, considering how polite and considerate Donald is of everyone else’s feelings.  But then again, we and the media are expected to maintain a higher standard than the President of the United States.  Which is a perfectly rational belief.

[Jeremy Roussak]

If you can't all do better than this last page of pointless bickering, I will close this thread.

Jeremy

[Paulo Bizarro]

Red Herring #1
Some do, yes.  And so they keep telling us in their advertising.  They're not the only ones doing so, however.

Red Herring #2
Few have stopped entirely.  Many are significantly reducing consumption. Me among them.

It is more than advertising. You can read their annual reports and check the figures.

#2 is not a red herring - it is putting your actions where your mouth is.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I'm guessing that before Man was around, he wasn't responsible for CO2 levels? A stab in the dark, I know....

Right... back then, volcanic eruptions were a big part of it. As they are today.