And if the calculations are wrong and it doesn't work as well as expected or has unexpected downsides, at least you still have some trees to use. I'm not just being cute here.
Which is why it will be deemed "a token gesture", or "a band-aid" and they will demand "but what we REALLY need is [insert fund transfers from wealthy nations elsewhere]".
I note the report, in passing, makes the assertion that current climate models are wrong. (In this case, about what changes where affect trees how...)
Seems like every topic associated with "Climate" science draws criticism from experts and scientists in related disciplines. Paul Reiter resigned from the UN IPCC because of the claims about bugs and diseases (his specialties) made in the "climate" reports. Nils-Axil Morner resigned the IPCC when they published bad projections about rising sea levels.(Morner's expertise). Peter Ridd was fired, (did not resign) when complaining about climate guys' bad models of coral reefs -- again, his own area of research. Glacier guys say the IPCC is wrong about glaciers. A polar bear gal says the climate projections are wrong about bears. Statisticians object to the selection and analysis methods of the "masters of the tree ring circus".
It seems to me the claim that 97% percent of "scientists" agree about the UN official climate concern is that all heretics, dissenters, apostates and competitors are excommunicated, stoned, burned or "de-platformed."
In fairness to the 97%--the real 97%--their consensus is that Earth is warming: the sun is heating up, has been since it first lit off, and will continue to do so until it goes nova in another 8-12 billion years and transitions to a red giant.
6 comments:
In many areas more trees would be welcome. Using drones to plant them means the timing could be fine tuned with the weekly weather patterns.
And if the calculations are wrong and it doesn't work as well as expected or has unexpected downsides, at least you still have some trees to use. I'm not just being cute here.
I have to imagine it's cheaper than other proposed 'solutions'.
Which is why it will be deemed "a token gesture", or "a band-aid" and they will demand "but what we REALLY need is [insert fund transfers from wealthy nations elsewhere]".
I note the report, in passing, makes the assertion that current climate models are wrong. (In this case, about what changes where affect trees how...)
Seems like every topic associated with "Climate" science draws criticism from experts and scientists in related disciplines. Paul Reiter resigned from the UN IPCC because of the claims about bugs and diseases (his specialties) made in the "climate" reports. Nils-Axil Morner resigned the IPCC when they published bad projections about rising sea levels.(Morner's expertise). Peter Ridd was fired, (did not resign) when complaining about climate guys' bad models of coral reefs -- again, his own area of research. Glacier guys say the IPCC is wrong about glaciers. A polar bear gal says the climate projections are wrong about bears. Statisticians object to the selection and analysis methods of the "masters of the tree ring circus".
It seems to me the claim that 97% percent of "scientists" agree about the UN official climate concern is that all heretics, dissenters, apostates and competitors are excommunicated, stoned, burned or "de-platformed."
In fairness to the 97%--the real 97%--their consensus is that Earth is warming: the sun is heating up, has been since it first lit off, and will continue to do so until it goes nova in another 8-12 billion years and transitions to a red giant.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment