Is a mini ICE AGE on the way?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheCuriousCat said:
The thousands of researchers who have written dozens of papers on the subject have been very careful.

At epidemic levels (and it was the biggest epidemic of all time) the beetles begin attacking healthy trees. So it wasn’t an issue of them moving to where the trees were sicker. They moved into areas that had at one time been too cold for them, but now aren’t. They crossed the Rockies, which had always been a barrier for them due to the extreme altitude, now it isn’t. They were exacerbated by the fact that there were milder winters and warmer summers.

It’s warmer. They are worse because it’s warmer. They have looked into all the other possibilities, and its worse than it would have been because it’s warmer. Don’t believe it if you doing want to, but that’s what’s happening.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, Im not persuaded. If nothing else, “researchers” gave us infestations of multiflora rose and sericea lespedeza, not to mention kudzu. Insect travel in itself means nothing. Lots of insect pests and other destructive life forms have done it handily.

I also remember a poster here who maintained (with supposed research to back it up) that global warming was proved because some kind of bird (I can’t remember now what it was) had supposedly taken up permanent residence in east central Missouri instead of southwest Missouri. The theory was that the birds moved north because of global warming. I did some research on it and found that the only change had been that an area in east central Missouri had developed food resources through farming that had not been plentiful before. The number in SW Mo had not changed.
 
TheCuriousCat said:
The thousands of researchers who have written dozens of papers on the subject have been very careful.

At epidemic levels (and it was the biggest epidemic of all time) the beetles begin attacking healthy trees. So it wasn’t an issue of them moving to where the trees were sicker. They moved into areas that had at one time been too cold for them, but now aren’t. They crossed the Rockies, which had always been a barrier for them due to the extreme altitude, now it isn’t. They were exacerbated by the fact that there were milder winters and warmer summers.

It’s warmer. They are worse because it’s warmer. They have looked into all the other possibilities, and its worse than it would have been because it’s warmer. Don’t believe it if you doing want to, but that’s what’s happening.
Click to expand...
The researchers may have cited climate change for the reason that the survivable isotherm for pine beetles has moved northward, and may even themselves believe in AGW. However, since there is still a considerable question on the weight of effects of natural variability vs AGW, all that can be said is that the beetles have extended their range. Assigning this effect to AGW is premature. And there are other studies, such as Weed et al 2013, which claims that climate change is not the single variable that effects beetle populations, postulating that there is a non linear dependence of survival due to temperature extremes in both the north and south, and the age of a tree due to it’s resistance to blue-stain fungus, from Cole et al 1980. There are many factors to consider.
 
sps49 said:
Going for three for three I see. Please show an example of how someone “silenced you” in this thread, or how I did for that matter. Critical examination of reactionary statements is not a method of silencing. Claiming to be a victim due to a critical review of your own words is a method of silencing, or changing the subject. It is a weak method, relying on how successful the perception of victim-hood is transferred to the debate as a debate strategy, but little or no attention to the actual subject.
Click to expand...
And the sword cuts both ways. I and environmentalists here at CAF have been accused of being neopagan-pantheist-earth-worshiping-atheistic-communist-socialist-totalitarian-economy-destroying-baby-killers!
 
Ridgerunner said:
With all due respect, Im not persuaded. If nothing else, “researchers” gave us infestations of multiflora rose and sericea lespedeza, not to mention kudzu. Insect travel in itself means nothing. Lots of insect pests and other destructive life forms have done it handily.

I also remember a poster here who maintained (with supposed research to back it up) that global warming was proved because some kind of bird (I can’t remember now what it was) had supposedly taken up permanent residence in east central Missouri instead of southwest Missouri. The theory was that the birds moved north because of global warming. I did some research on it and found that the only change had been that an area in east central Missouri had developed food resources through farming that had not been plentiful before. The number in SW Mo had not changed.
Click to expand...
One also has to wonder why is a pine beetle infestation bad? They have been going on for eons and always result is a healthier forest. When it first came though our are area the hillsides looked terrible because the dead trees were bright brown but now the trees are dead , the needles dropped and new growth is already taking place. Of course you can never satisfy radical environmentalist. After decrying the the infestation they wanted to ban the spraying of chemicals we in town use to protect our trees.
 
lynnvinc said:
And the sword cuts both ways. I and environmentalists here at CAF have been accused of being neopagan-pantheist-earth-worshiping-atheistic-communist-socialist-totalitarian-economy-destroying-baby-killers!
Click to expand...
That particular sword is not present on this thread as regards the post I spoke of. Your own victim-hood is tempered by the the invective you prefer to use on those who disagree with you.
 
estesbob said:
One also has to wonder why is a pine beetle infestation bad? They have been going on for eons and always result is a healthier forest. When it first came though our are area the hillsides looked terrible because the dead trees were bright brown but now the trees are dead , the needles dropped and new growth is already taking place. Of course you can never satisfy radical environmentalist. After decrying the the infestation they wanted to ban the spraying of chemicals we in town use to protect our trees.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure it’s bad, any more than I am sure oak borers are bad here, in the long run, at least. There is no question that early subsistence farming brought on massive inadvertent plantings of red and black oaks. They’re more prolific than the more resistant and longer-lived white oaks, and form dense woods very quickly if previously-cultivated land is left idle.

And, too, the earlier farmers cut the short leaf and loblolly pines for timber. Pines don’t grow back from their roots like oaks do, so they were virtually wiped out.

And so now we’re having “oak die-off”, essentially of red and black oaks. White oaks have a better chance than they did. So do walnuts and hickories. Unfortunately, people have to replant the pine, but there is some of that going on.

In the very long run, one might reasonably expect the natural mix to re-establish itself. Oak borers (and other pests) might make things look bad for awhile, but I truly believe they’re just part of nature’s correction mechanism.

Probably pine beetles are too.
 
Ridgerunner said:
With all due respect, Im not persuaded. If nothing else, “researchers” gave us infestations of multiflora rose and sericea lespedeza, not to mention kudzu. Insect travel in itself means nothing. Lots of insect pests and other destructive life forms have done it handily.

I also remember a poster here who maintained (with supposed research to back it up) that global warming was proved because some kind of bird (I can’t remember now what it was) had supposedly taken up permanent residence in east central Missouri instead of southwest Missouri. The theory was that the birds moved north because of global warming. I did some research on it and found that the only change had been that an area in east central Missouri had developed food resources through farming that had not been plentiful before. The number in SW Mo had not changed.
Click to expand...
There is nothing you will believe, is there?
 
sps49 said:
Going for three for three I see. Please show an example of how someone “silenced you” in this thread, or how I did for that matter. Critical examination of reactionary statements is not a method of silencing. Claiming to be a victim due to a critical review of your own words is a method of silencing, or changing the subject. It is a weak method, relying on how successful the perception of victim-hood is transferred to the debate as a debate strategy, but little or no attention to the actual subject.
Click to expand...
Well, you are trying to silence me. You are trying to shame me into not writing my posts. Somehow, I would be embarrassed if my priest found out what I wrote. My posts are ‘reactionary’. ‘Three for three.’ I must be missing all the times you comment in other threads when someone goes off-topic. My take is that you trying to silence me because I am saying things that don’t fit your worldview.

And, I’m sorry, but it is totally on-topic to point out how some Catholics clearly have their own misplaced Messianic expectations that don’t fit with reality and part of that false expectation includes views on the environment where the teachings of the Pope are ignored. You might not like it (I suspect you really don’t like it), but it’s true.
 
Crossbones said:
Well, you are trying to silence me. You are trying to shame me into not writing my posts. Somehow, I would be embarrassed if my priest found out what I wrote. My posts are ‘reactionary’. ‘Three for three.’ I must be missing all the times you comment in other threads when someone goes off-topic. My take is that you trying to silence me because I am saying things that don’t fit your worldview.

And, I’m sorry, but it is totally on-topic to point out how some Catholics clearly have their own misplaced Messianic expectations that don’t fit with reality and part of that false expectation includes views on the environment where the teachings of the Pope are ignored. You might not like it (I suspect you really don’t like it), but it’s true.
Click to expand...
Projection. Find someone else to fit into your narrative.
 
sps49 said:
Projection. Find someone else to fit into your narrative.
Click to expand...
I guess it would be silly to point out that it was you replying to my posts and not the other way around. The narrative makes a ton of sense to me. Whether or not you think it applies to you is up to you and your conscience.
 
Crossbones said:
I guess it would be silly to point out that it was you replying to my posts and not the other way around. The narrative makes a ton of sense to me. Whether or not you think it applies to you is up to you and your conscience.
Click to expand...
Of course it makes sense to you. The victim narrative replaces criticism with shaming for the purpose of deflecting the conversation. It is an unremarkable tactic to command the debate space whilst avoiding the subject. Very weak tea.
 
sps49 said:
Of course it makes sense to you. The victim narrative replaces criticism with shaming for the purpose of deflecting the conversation. It is an unremarkable tactic to command the debate space whilst avoiding the subject. Very weak tea.
Click to expand...
I’m the one commanding the debate space by responding to your comments on my posts? I think it is you that are attempting to command the debate space. If you don’t think my points have value then just don’t reply.

The fact is that I’m not playing a victim here, I’m just pointing out how some (like you) attempt to stifle debate and saying that many aren’t willing to let go of their personal Messianic expectations to understand the truth. The lack of reasonable debate on almost every topic here is because of those two points above. And, like I’ve already said, I’ve never see you comment on any other post about a topic going astray, but you seem to keep on responding to me with a very vivid imagination about what I am talking about.
 
Why aren’t your discussion opponents allowed to tell you (with supporting evidence/logic) that your points don’t add value?

Your defensiveness is a deflection pure and simple. People will call out bad posts mostly for the benefit of other readers. Bad points should not be ignored.
Crossbones said:
I’m the one commanding the debate space by responding to your comments on my posts? I think it is you that are attempting to command the debate space. If you don’t think my points have value then just don’t reply.
Click to expand...
 
Crossbones said:
I’m the one commanding the debate space by responding to your comments on my posts? I think it is you that are attempting to command the debate space. If you don’t think my points have value then just don’t reply.

The fact is that I’m not playing a victim here, I’m just pointing out how some (like you) attempt to stifle debate and saying that many aren’t willing to let go of their personal Messianic expectations to understand the truth. The lack of reasonable debate on almost every topic here is because of those two points above. And, like I’ve already said, I’ve never see you comment on any other post about a topic going astray, but you seem to keep on responding to me with a very vivid imagination about what I am talking about.
Click to expand...
Your opinion is noted, although the extreme poverty of facts conspire to render those opinions about the motivations of various CAF posters, to wit, stifling communications, messianic expectations, lack of reasonableness in debate, and conclusions about the imaginations of people you do not know, virtually meaningless, and devoid of utility. You do project yourself well, though, and I suppose that shows that your communications are not being impeded by anything except your own perception.
 
Theo520 said:
Why aren’t your discussion opponents allowed to tell you (with supporting evidence/logic) that your points don’t add value?

Your defensiveness is a deflection pure and simple. People will call out bad posts mostly for the benefit of other readers. Bad points should not be ignored.
Click to expand...
It’s a higher plane of thought beyond the discussion of this particular thread. Messianic expectations did not end because Christ reveals Himself. It seems that people fit the Christ to fit their view of the world, not learning from Christ to reshape their worldview.

Now, from that single post, I have now had four responses from sps trying to shame me, accusing me of playing a victim and deflection as I point out that what he is doing is a pretty standard method around here to stifle debate. Now, you’re jumping in saying I’m acting defensive to deflect.

I guess if you want to believe that, it’s your business, but let me suggest that you read to forum with an eye to see how narrow the views are around here and how many methods are used to stifle unpopular points of views. Shaming, calling posts uncharitable, lots of reporting to moderators, etc.
 
Crossbones said:
It’s a higher plane of thought beyond the discussion of this particular thread. Messianic expectations did not end because Christ reveals Himself. It seems that people fit the Christ to fit their view of the world, not learning from Christ to reshape their worldview.

Now, from that single post, I have now had four responses from sps trying to shame me, accusing me of playing a victim and deflection as I point out that what he is doing is a pretty standard method around here to stifle debate. Now, you’re jumping in saying I’m acting defensive to deflect.

I guess if you want to believe that, it’s your business, but let me suggest that you read to forum with an eye to see how narrow the views are around here and how many methods are used to stifle unpopular points of views. Shaming, calling posts uncharitable, lots of reporting to moderators, etc.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps you could review their interpretation of what you’ve said. There is usually an opportunity for clarification of one’s thinking in light of how others responded.

What I read was disparaging tone, such as follows, which does nothing to further the debate: “My priest spoke on global warming today in his homily. I guess he doesn’t take the time to read this forum so he can get the bizarre mix of Republican Jesus theology from here.”
 
Theo520 said:
Or perhaps you could review their interpretation of what you’ve said. There is usually an opportunity for clarification of one’s thinking in light of how others responded.

What I read was disparaging tone, such as follows, which does nothing to further the debate: “My priest spoke on global warming today in his homily. I guess he doesn’t take the time to read this forum so he can get the bizarre mix of Republican Jesus theology from here.”
Click to expand...
Right, and you think you get what exactly around here?
 
Theo520 said:
LOL, now explain what that chart doesn’t match any of the IPCC climate model forecasts!

I hope you are aware that models should be validated against measurement.
That’s how the scientific method works.
Click to expand...
They don’t because models use equations. Actual measurement has more “noise.”

What you should look at, then, are the trend lines. The blue lines refer to your pauses. The red line shows the warming trend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top