This is a real article in the New York Times:
Forests Are No Longer Our Climate Friends
Canadian wildfires have this year burned a land area larger than 104 of the world’s 195 countries. But what is perhaps most striking about this year’s fires is that despite their scale, they are merely a continuation of a dangerous trend: Every year since 2001, Canada’s forests have emitted more carbon than they’ve absorbed. That is the central finding of a distressing analysis published last month by Barry Saxifrage in Canada’s National Observer.
Canada may be a disorienting cultural tipping point. If we thought trees might save us, that is looking increasingly like a foolish bet. In many parts of the world, including some of the most densely forested, trees are not perfect allies for tree-huggers anymore, and forests no longer reliable climate partners. What was once the embodiment of environmental values now seems increasingly to be fighting for the other side.
That’s not science.
That is pure and unadulterated mysticism.
The problem has been consistently bad forest management.
Trees live and trees die.
Trees grow and trees drop leaves and branches.
Fire, since time immemorial, has cleared the dead biomass from the forests to allow forests to live.
Humans started putting out the fires. The biomass built up and now the fires rage out of control.
The fix is simple. If humans dont want massive forest fires, humans need to do what the fires used to do and clear out the biomass.
The most effective way of doing that is logging and small controlled burns.
The good news is, that is carbon sequestration. Carbon dioxide gets turned into wood, we turn that wood into a house.
But the Canadians, like the Californians, believe that chainsaws are tools of the devil and logging is evil.
So they make the fires worse. And now, since they can’t comprehend the reality of forests, they say the forests are not their friends.
There will be no fix until these people are utterly ignored for being that stupid.
Well they need a justification for cutting down all the forests and filling the land w/ windmills/solar panels.
https://www.outkick.com/scotland-cut-down-16-million-trees-to-install-wind-farms/
Ignored? No.
.
Mocked? Pointed at and laughed at? Ridiculed? Yes.
Today’s environmentalist, climate change, Green New Deal, proponent, believes what government paid scientists assert, publish, all of which is based on a foundation of reasoning coded into computer science models which produce results which justify………….getting paid by taxpayer’s dollars.
.
If I told you that the computer models used to ‘prove’ global climate change’ omit, weather factors, such as clouds of any type, whether caused by evaporation or catastrophic events, and are solely based on non-weather factor days which means sunny days with no cloud-cover at all, would you believe me.
.
And if I told you that IF the ‘climate models’ included cloud cover and all natural weather factors and events that the results would prove the exact opposite of what the before mentioned proponents assert, could you believe me? I say “Could” because I have found that once today’s person, becomes emotionally attached to what they believe, there is little chance of persuading them of any reconsideration.
.
I don’t know if this link will work, but this article from a most credible source is worth the read – https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/nobel-winner-refutes-climate-change-narrative-points-out-ignored-factor-5486267?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-09-10&src_cmp=mb-2023-09-10&utm_medium=email&est=SRVFX7FynU%2BX7PuDGG8t%2FU0yaXcXpJdEvc0lx%2BRMsFy1sHeCwBgcEdy0ibceIwL6ZrpzWKQM
Global Warming, huh?
Ever hear of The Maunder Minimum?
How about the cause of The Potato Blight’s spread, and the Irish famine?
Anyone who answers “No” to either question, cannot have an opinion worth listening to ref “global warming”.
I like to point out at every opportunity that warmists who speak of “n degrees warmer than pre-industrial times” rarely specify what “pre-industrial times” means. If they do, they typically say 1850.
Why does that matter? Because temperatures have always varied. One way to see this is from paleoclimate data derived from the thick ice sheet on Greenland, which goes back 50k years or so. NOAA (a US government agency) has published the raw data, and some years ago I downloaded it. Look for “GISP 2”.
Graphing it is interesting. It shows the most recent ice age, ending about 10,000 years ago. But since then, it continues to show significant temperature variations. It was noticeably warmer than today in the days of C. Julius Caesar. It was also rather warm in the days of Leif Eriksson, when the Vikings settled on Greenland. And the second coldest time in the past 5000 years or so was around 1850. So do you still wonder why that particular date is used as the “not much warmer than this” reference point?