Study documents tree species' decline due to climate warming

January 6, 2017 by Dan Joling
This undated photo provided by the U.S. Forest Service shows yellow-cedar trees growing along Sheep Lake east of the Cascade crest in Washington State. A study documenting mortality of yellow cedar trees in Alaska and British Columbia concludes that the future is gloomy for the iconic species valued for its commercial and cultural values. Researchers say additional mortality is likely over the next 50 years as the climate warms and rain replaces snow. (U.S. Forest Service via AP)

A type of tree that thrives in soggy soil from Alaska to Northern California and is valued for its commercial and cultural uses could become a noticeable casualty of climate warming over the next 50 years, an independent study has concluded.

Yellow cedar, named for its distinctive yellow wood, already is under consideration for federal listing as a threatened or endangered species.

The study published in the journal Global Change Biology found death due to root freeze on 7 percent of the tree's range, including areas where it's most prolific. It cited snow-cover loss that led to colder soil.

Additional mortality is likely as the climate warms, researchers said.

"Lack of snow is only going to become more and more prevalent," said lead author Brian Buma, a University of Alaska Southeast assistant professor of forest ecosystem ecology.

By 2070, winter temperatures in about 50 percent of the areas now suitable for yellow cedar are expected to rise and transition from snow to more rain, according to the study.

Yellow cedar began to decline in about 1880, according to the U.S. Forest Service, and its vulnerability is viewed as one of the best-documented examples of 's effect on a forest tree.

The trees are in the cypress family and are not true cedars, which are part of the pine family. They have grown to 200 feet and can live more than 1,200 years.

Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian people used yellow cedar for canoe paddles, tool handles and totem poles. They can harvest a lengthwise strip of bark from a living tree for weaving baskets and hats, and as backing in blankets. The tree can compartmentalize the injury and continue growing.

The slow-growing trees historically found a niche near bogs. Those wetlands provided openings in the forest canopy but poor soil rejected by other trees.

This undated photo provided by the U.S. Forest Service shows a yellow-cedar tree growing east of the Cascade Crest in Washington state. A study documenting mortality of yellow cedar trees in Alaska and British Columbia concludes that the future is gloomy for the iconic species valued for its commercial and cultural values. Researchers say additional mortality is likely over the next 50 years as the climate warms and rain replaces snow. (U.S. Forest Service via AP)

"Elsewhere, it (yellow cedar) generally gets out-competed by spruce, which grows faster, or hemlock, which can grow in lower light conditions," Buma said.

The study by Alaska, Washington, California and British Columbia researchers documented the magnitude and location of yellow cedar mortality in Canada and the United States.

More than 1,544 square miles containing yellow cedar—mostly north of Vancouver Island, British Columbia—have experienced upward of 70 percent mortality. Another 20,207 square miles remain, but many of the trees will be vulnerable if projected warming occurs.

Researchers found little mortality in trees at higher elevations in Washington and Oregon where snow level has not diminished and roots have not been exposed to freezing temperatures. Conversely, in some areas, such as parts of Vancouver Island, there's no snow where yellow cedar grows, but temperatures never drop sufficiently to freeze their roots, Buma said.

The effect of climate change on yellow cedar has led to research on other shallow-rooted trees that could be vulnerable, such as sugar maple and yellow birch, said Paul Schaberg, a Forest Service research plant physiologist from Burlington, Vermont. No climate change effects on U.S. trees have been as well-documented as research on yellow cedar, he said.

"Projections are that other species could be negatively impacted, but other species, at least in some places, could be positively impacted," he said.

The agency has begun a tree atlas, currently listing 134 species, that documents their current and possible future distribution under climate change projections.

A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision on listing yellow cedar as threatened or endangered is scheduled for September 2019, spokeswoman Andrea Medeiros said.

Owen Graham, executive director of the Alaska Forest Association, a timber industry trade group, remains opposed to a listing. Yellow cedar die-off in the last century has been intermittent and natural, he said. Trees that died were replaced by new .

"The whole thing is just a stupid effort to try to tangle up the timber supply some more," he said. "It's ludicrous."

Explore further: New report provides conservation, management strategies for yellow-cedar in Alaska

Related Stories

Yellow-cedar are dying in Alaska: Scientists now know why

February 1, 2012

Yellow-cedar, a culturally and economically valuable tree in southeastern Alaska and adjacent parts of British Columbia, has been dying off across large expanses of these areas for the past 100 years. But no one could say ...

How will tree diseases react to climate change?

March 22, 2010

Under a changing climate, patterns of forest disturbance are expected to change, but how will forest diseases respond? A summary of scientific information that addresses this question is now available on the Internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/insect_disease/. ...

Climate change requires new conservation models

October 15, 2015

A threatened tree species in Alaska could serve as a model for integrating ecological and social research methods in efforts to safeguard species that are vulnerable to climate change effects and human activity.

Recommended for you

Climate change made Harvey rainfall 15 percent more intense

December 14, 2017

A team of scientists from World Weather Attribution, including researchers from Rice University and other institutions in the United States and Europe, have found that human-caused climate change made the record rainfall ...

East Antarctic Ice Sheet has history of instability

December 13, 2017

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet locks away enough water to raise sea level an estimated 53 meters (174 feet), more than any other ice sheet on the planet. It's also thought to be among the most stable, not gaining or losing ...

Hydraulic fracturing negatively impacts infant health

December 13, 2017

From North Dakota to Ohio to Pennsylvania, hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, has transformed small towns into energy powerhouses. While some see the new energy boom as benefiting the local economy and decreasing ...

50 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Chris_Reeve
1.8 / 5 (13) Jan 06, 2017
What the academic community just does not get, over and over actually, is that a significant chunk of the public no longer believes these claims.
gkam
3 / 5 (12) Jan 06, 2017
What Chris means is Reagan's Dumbing-Down of America is paying dividends.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 06, 2017
... a significant chunk of the public no longer believes these claims.
@hannes/reeve
the reason isn't because it's not a fact, but rather because of people like yourself who promote ideology and belief over factual evidence based science - see also:
http://phys.org/n...mes.html

this is most noticeable in political arena's as noted here: http://journals.p....0075637

then you have those who make arguments from "authority" while promoting a blatant lie easily refuted by a three second search... like PV's (DC) charging an EV at night like here: http://phys.org/n...gas.html

http://phys.org/n...car.html

http://phys.org/n...les.html

just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean it is

gkam
1 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2017
just because you use the apostrophe doesn't mean it's right

" political arena's "
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 06, 2017
Re: "the reason isn't because it's not a fact, but rather because of people like yourself who promote ideology and belief over factual evidence based science"

When models are presented as facts, we are talking about a belief system -- not the provisional tool for thinking which inches us closer to reality over time. If ever there was a way to stop the advancement of science in its tracks, go ahead and treat the models as facts, and ostracize those who are actually trying to use these models as tools for interpreting nature.

Real science will continue to advance without you. You cannot stop people from thinking and using science as it was originally intended.

And to the extent that you nevertheless try, many people will see straight through that and just stop paying attention to these claims.

The mistake really occurs at the point where you assume that people don't get the process.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 06, 2017
and ostracize those who are actually trying to use these models as tools for interpreting nature
@hannes/reeve
complete nonsensical bullsh*t pseudoscience commentary is yet another reason people can't comprehend science

take your comment
you make the ASSumption that all people see models as facts while demonstrating that you yourself don't comprehend what:
1- a model actually is
2- what the scientific method is

and you promote yourself as some advocate for science - yet you can't actually follow the criteria necessary to be considered unbiased, scientific or even semi-accurate
Real science will continue to advance without you
not only a strawman argument, but this is actually a strawman based upon your own transference

you advocate for a pseudoscience and argue for it's acceptance in science circles without the evidence science requires, but claim science will advance without people like scientists?

you just validated my above post
thanks
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2017
How did they ever survive the 1930s, when it was much hotter.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2017
"like PV's (DC) charging an EV at night"
----------------------------------------
Reeve, you can' t have an intelligent discussion with someone who cannot grasp the understanding of banking resources, or using the grid to "store" energy, like we do with our PV system and electric vehicle.

We do not need batteries because we trade power with the grid, and it works for all of us. It helps to not be so selfish you have to go it alone.
Chris_Reeve
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 06, 2017
Re: "you make the ASSumption that all people see models as facts"

No, I was merely responding to your statement that the reason people don't believe in climate change "isn't because it's not a fact".

Further, the bulk of the science journalism treats climate change -- and most scientific claims today -- as a fact. Science historian, John Burnham, explains exactly when this started in his book, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States.

It started shortly after Relativity and quantum mechanics arrived on the scene. That's when the science journalists started to struggle to sell science on its explanatory appeal.

So, what they did was they started reporting on scientific CLAIMS as FACTS in order to sell each claim as proof of PROGRESS.

Once you know the history of science journalism, there is no riddle to the public's beliefs on climate change.

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 06, 2017
the bulk of the science journalism treats climate change -- and most scientific claims today -- as a fact
@hannes/reeve
and again, you're demonstrating your lack of knowledge in:
1- the scientific method
2- the difference between science and media reporting, which the latter is geared towards generating income from reporting their *version* of what the science says
It started shortly after Relativity and quantum mechanics arrived on the scene
no, it didn't
again, you're confused between what science is and what you percieve science to be

adding to your confusion you've chosen the media as paragons of virtue whereas you can see by historical record that they're far from being even superior at accuracy, let alone representative of factual representations of reality

science, however, has ignored the media and focused on an evidence based argument which has brought the world to the technological level it's at now

not pseudoscience or religion, but science

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2017
@chris/hannes cont'd
this is further validated by your own post where you state
Once you know the history of science journalism
the history of *any* journalism is sensationalism for the sake of financial gain

you don't see media reporting about the latest studies that are mundane or are expected... you see them promoting the gross, the wild claims or the blatantly false in some cases, much like their insistence that there is some debate about climate science

the only "debate" about climate science is why the pseudoscientific deniers get the same air time without adhereing to the mandates of the scientific method

they promote a false belief, thus a major portion of the problem of the anti-AGW crowd can rest a great deal of blame on the media itself and it's desire to sell a story that is patently false, simply because it gains them notoriety, financial recompense and widespread debate which in turn enhances their financial status

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2017
@reeve/hannes last
So, what they did was they started reporting on scientific CLAIMS as FACTS in order to sell each claim as proof of PROGRESS
and again... the media does not, in any way, shape or form, give science it's power to progress

it is the evidence in science that propels things into mainstream... and it's a lack of evidence that insures pseudoscience is not considered or discussed in mainstream

this is where you separate the idiot religious cult members from the science - period

it doesn't matter how much media attention the eu cult gets

so again, you simply continue to validate my points while also reinforcing and validating the studies and links i've provided above

You and stolen valor liar-girl are literally proving my argument for me - pseudoscience and blatant misrepresentations of science are not victim-less crimes
AND
just because you're peers believe something doesn't mean it's true

humy
5 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2017
What the academic community just does not get, over and over actually, is that a significant chunk of the public no longer believes these claims.

Fortunately, most of the rest of us laypeople and experts alike are more rational and accept valid science as valid science thus generally believe those clams to be scientifically valid.
SteveS
4.9 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2017
What the academic community just does not get, over and over actually, is that a significant chunk of the public no longer believes these claims.


What Chris_Reeve just does not get, over and over actually, is that the academic community doesn't care what he believes or not, except possibly the behavioural psychologists.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2017
What Chris_Reeve just does not get, over and over actually, is that the academic community doesn't care what he believes or not...
to support Humy and SteveS:

http://media-cach...b022.jpg

antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2017
What Chris_Reeve just does not get, over and over actually, is that the academic community doesn't care what he believes or not...
to support Humy and SteveS:

http://media-cach...b022.jpg


The AGW Chicken Little retard, again just parroting what it is fed by the Cult.
How can science care or feel anything?
The Cult of AGWism, on the other hand, certainly does. That's why it can produce such ignorant propaganda and know fully well that their illiterate Chicken Littles will troll the internet, propagating it.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2017
"AGW Chicken Little retard"
--------------------------------

Oh yeah? Well, your mother wears men's underwear!

So there!
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2017
Re: "science, however, has ignored the media"

Does anybody really believe this propaganda?
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2017
Re: "Fortunately, most of the rest of us laypeople and experts alike are more rational and accept valid science as valid science thus generally believe those clams to be scientifically valid."

If your approach is to ignore all academic whistleblowers and critics, then the conclusions should come as no surprise to anybody.

An honest approach which recognizes that controversy is a normal aspect of modern science would try harder to systematically map out the arguments on both sides. It would also encourage people to actually place bets on scientific predictions -- so that there is actually a penalty for being wrong. That is called a "science futures" market.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2017
Could gambling save science? Encouraging an honest consensus, by Robin Hanson

"Consider the example of Piers Corbyn, a London astrophysicist who has been unable to get academic meteorologists interested in his unusual theory of long-term weather cycles (New Scientist, 1990). Since June 1988 he has been making bets to gain publicity, betting against the bookmakers William Hill, who uses odds posted by the British Meteorological Service. He has been winning. Over the 26 months from April 1989 to May 1991, Corbyn has made at least 9 bets a month (and averaged over 20 bets a month) and has won 80% of these bets, gaining an average rate of return of over 25% per bet ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2017
(cont'd)

"... (Depending on what independence you assume between bets in a given month, the chance of this happening randomly is between 1 in 400 and 1 in 1050.) Yet the Service still refuses to take Corbyn seriously, or make even token bets against him. This doesn't seem quite fair; hasn't Corbyn earned the right to be considered? William Hill has taken on the bets for the publicity but is tired of losing, and has adjusted their odds accordingly. Why shouldn't these be the odds used for official British agricultural policy, instead of the Service's predictions?"
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2017
When people go online to make predictions about the future climate, they have nothing to lose if they are wrong. That's a problem which we can actually fix. If these people believe this so much, then they should place their bets on the UK science futures market (the only place where this is currently legal).

I'm building out a social network which is focused on scientific controversies. On this platform, the experts identify themselves through successful wagers. They are not just experts because their ideology happens to align with the mainstream; the true experts understand science so well that they can successfully predict how experiments and observations will turn out.

Setting this system up will make science more honest. People like Captain Stumpy will have to prove their expertise.

It's too easy to type your ideology into the comments. Let's make reality matter again.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2017
Re: "What Chris_Reeve just does not get, over and over actually, is that the academic community doesn't care what he believes or not, except possibly the behavioural psychologists."

Well, of course. But, ignoring critics is simply an aspect of the larger approach, and it's hardly a "feature" ...

The Death of $cience: A Companion Study to Martin Lopez Corredoira's The Twilight of the Scientific Age
by Andrew Holster

p.73:

"Professional opposition to outsiders crossing boundaries of specialisations is one of the defining features of modern science, and one of the most powerful forces against heterodox thinkers. But combining insights from multiple fields is often the essential ingredient for making progress."
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2017
Does anybody really believe this propaganda?
@chris/hannes
this should be easy for you to prove - show me just one time where science and scientists have accepted the media hype around any topic and accepted it as scientific fact while ignoring empirical evidence that stated otherwise

i'll patiently await that evidence, though this isn't the first request
If your approach is to ignore all academic whistleblowers and critics
1- strawman argument
2- no one said to ignore anyone with evidence
perhaps you should utilise this link while you're still semi-cognizant & capable of learning basics: http://www.readingbear.org/

An honest approach which recognizes that controversy is a normal aspectblah blah map out the arguments on both sides
were you semi literate or capable of comprehending the scientific method, you would understand that all science does this, so long as there is the requisite evidence for said argument

case in point: gravity

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2017
@hannes/reeve cont'd
But, ignoring critics is simply an aspect of the larger approach, and it's hardly a "feature"
and again, there is a difference between ignoring a critic who has no physical evidence and ignoring someone who wants attention becuase they don't believe the evidence all around them

in your case, advocating for the eu on PO, you would fall under the latter category
you have yet to provide any evidence or a model that directly challenges the MS arguments to any galactic physics, mostly because you've been taken in by the propaganda of the cult

when you can produce viable evidence you will find the academic and scientific communities far more positive regarding your arguments
People like Captain Stumpy will have to prove their expertise
these forums already exist, just so you know

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2017
Whannes/reeve cont'd
Setting this system up will make science more honest. People like Captain Stumpy will have to prove their expertise
1- it will not be "more honest" if you moderate the site personally because you can't comprehend the difference between a claim and actual evidence

2- i already belong to several such sites and have proven my expertise

3- are you still pissed off because you can't actually provide evidence for your claims?
you should learn from our interactions: i am not any different than any other person who requires evidence for a claim. so the problem isn't with me, but your failure to provide evidence
It's too easy to type your ideology into the comments
and i have told you that for a long time

problem is, you can differentiate between your ideology and evidence based science, and since you have a cult that *claims* evidence, then you ASSume they're correct without educating yourself

that's on you, not i

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2017
@hanes/reeve cont'd
The Death of $cience: A Companion Study to Martin Lopez Corredoira's The Twilight of the Scientific Age
by Andrew Holster
this is called idology, not an evidence based argument

it can also be called opinion
at it's best, it is only an untested claim (yet again, please see: http://www.auburn...ion.html )
the true experts understand science so well that they can successfully predict how experiments and observations will turn out
so here is yet another point regarding your ideology vrs science:
*Why* do you ignore these same true experts when they make a scientific statement that directly contradicts something you believe in?

case in point: astrophysics and climate science

i've never made ideological claims and post links/references supporting my point
- you never have been able to refute any study i've linked

but you claim i post ideology?

thanks for validating my points and links above
humy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2017
Re: "Fortunately, most of the rest of us laypeople and experts alike are more rational and accept valid science as valid science thus generally believe those clams to be scientifically valid."

If your approach is to ignore all academic whistleblowers and ..., .

Nope, that is not what I mean. Ignorant opinion about science isn't whistleblowing.
humy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 07, 2017

An honest approach which recognizes that controversy is a normal aspect of modern science .

I take it this would this be the controversy consisting of the relative minority of the science-ignorant laypeople who disbelieve any claim from science they don't want to believe, such as religious fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists etc. Such controversy is not part of any valid science but rather is merely apposed to valid science. So, no, what you say there is simply not true. Scientists, not some ignorant opinionated laypeople, having diverse and differing scientific theories each who is trying to prove his theory correct and the others wrong, is part of modern science.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2017
Re: "his should be easy for you to prove - show me just one time where science and scientists have accepted the media hype around any topic and accepted it as scientific fact while ignoring empirical evidence that stated otherwise"

The supposed decline of polar bears is a case in point which easily fits your criteria: Climate scientists are pushing a narrative which has been popularized in the media, but which lacks any real scientific substance. There are more polar bears today than there were 40 years ago.

https://polarbear...r-bears/

"While polar bear biologists Ian Stirling and Andrew Derocher continue to insist that the modest decline in numbers of Western Hudson Bay polar bears recorded between 1998 and 2004 was due to earlier breakup of sea ice – and continues on that trend to this day – it turns out that much of the data used to support that claim is either unpublished, woefully out of date, or both."
richdiggins
1 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2017
There is the geologic temperature record, which does not support the "warming dialog".
https://en.wikipe...e_record

We just came out of an ice age within the last few hundred years... and we are actually at a lower average temp than what is normal for the earth according to geological records. Therefor we are not actually out of the ice age.

So, pray tell, how do these facts fit the "stop bbq'ing in the backyard" ... aka man made global warming narrative?

Elevated CO2 levels have shown to be extremely beneficial to wild plant life. It has been shown that the plants will absorb and grow much faster in the presents of elevated co2.

Stop listening to Al Gore, and do some research.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2017
The most amusing thing about this piece of AGW Cult propaganda is that the entire region they claim this is happening was hotter during the 1930s and has been cooling since the 1990s.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2017
but which lacks any real scientific substance
@hannes/reeve
and again, i said show evidence

what you linked was a dot.com site and very specifically, someone's opinion on said topic

there is no source material, nor is there any validation that scientists cling to a belief regarding the polar bear that isn't substantiated by factual evidence from reputable journal studies

so you demonstrate your ignorance again while proving my point about you regarding not comprehending the difference between source material and articles, opinion or media hype

this is source material: https://academic....Climate1

note that it is a peer reviewed study in a journal - not opinion, but a substantiated evidence based study that is validated by current research

the difference between science and you?
you posted someone's opinion
i posted science

get it yet?
geokstr
1 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2017
What Chris means is Reagan's Dumbing-Down of America is paying dividends.


Reagan?????????

Marxists have been in charge of our teachers' unions and university faculties for 50 years, aided and amplified by their useful idiots, the "objective", "unbiased", "news" media and the scientifically illiterate leftists that run the entertainment/cultural industries. Does the ghost of Reagan exercise some sort of mind control to overcome all that propagandizing?

And the "dumbing down" you decry has happened with your side in charge of all that, as scores decline precipitously. Employers complain of not being able to find college grads who can do simple math write a coherent sentence.
richdiggins
1 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2017



there is no source material, nor is there any validation that scientists cling to a belief regarding the polar bear that isn't substantiated by factual evidence from reputable journal studies


Nonsense. Ignoring the bigger picture and concocting a theory based on 'factual evidence' gathered by those that perpetrate the myth.

Where does that polar bear article does it state that AWG / Man-Made Global warming is the cause?

The bigger picture is that all of the b.s. 'facts' only look at a small set of data from a small period of time.

Familiarize yourself with geology, fossil records, the dynamic nature of the hydrosphere. Many creatures, plants and civilizations have relocated due to climate change over the course of earths history. This is a natural phenomenon. To expect "climate zones' on earth to be the same forever is as f-ed up as hogans goat.

Get it yet?

humy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2017
Chris_Reeve

Science doesn't care about public opinion. Science is about the evidence, not layperson opinion. So some science-ignorant members of the public having the ignorant opinion that a scientific claim is false, is irrelevant to what is valid science and not part of any valid science. Whenever a scientist makes a theory to explain the data, he quite rightly doesn't consult the public for their opinion on it and obviously shouldn't care a less about their ignorant opinion on it. A scientist should, and generally does, completely ignore public opinion and just goes wherever the evidence points instead.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2017
"I love the poorly-educated!"
-------------------------------

And Putin, too

And have the Bush Voters (you), PAID for your Wars of Mass Killing and Corporate Profit yet?

We could really use those $4,000,000,000,000 right now.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2017
The above comment was in reaction to the silly posts of geokrstr who hates liberals and all the goodness for which they stand.

He thinks the Repubs are always right, but doesn't know where them-there "WMD!" went. Or our $4,000,000,000,000 !
richdiggins
1 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2017
@humy

Perhaps you will continue to grace us with your wisdom. After all, it would be a shame to not be able to hear the opinion of such an established genius as yourself.

Even now, science is about evidence.

When your anonymous "scientists" make a claim. ... you can all but guarantee that claim is false.

To ignore empirical evidence, in order to adhere to the political views of the day, is fraud.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2017
"To ignore empirical evidence, in order to adhere to the political views of the day, is fraud."
------------------------------

Yes, . . found them "WMD!"?

Got a thermometer?
humy
5 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2017

When your anonymous "scientists" make a claim. ... you can all but guarantee that claim is false. .

don't understand what you are saying;
are you saying all scientists that make a claim are "anonymous"?
or are you saying I was referring to "anonymous" scientists? I obviously wasn't. I can name a few but don't see the point unless you deny they exist.
or are you saying all claims made by scientists are false?
Or what exactly?
humy
5 / 5 (9) Jan 08, 2017

To ignore empirical evidence, in order to adhere to the political views of the day, is fraud.

Yes, that is what I clearly implied. I cannot tell if you are being supportive of my comments or in some way criticizing them; which? And if criticizing, what is your criticism? I ask because, if it is criticism, I honestly don't understand what that criticism is so please elaborate just a bit. If you are supportive, then I apologize in advance.
humy
5 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2017
@humy

Perhaps you will continue to grace us with your wisdom. After all, it would be a shame to not be able to hear the opinion of such an established genius as yourself.

Even now, science is about evidence.

When your anonymous "scientists" make a claim. ... you can all but guarantee that claim is false.

To ignore empirical evidence, in order to adhere to the political views of the day, is fraud.


Oh, wait; are you criticizing my comments because I am stating such obvious things that it insults your intelligence? If so, then I can understand how it would insult your intelligence. But note that it wouldn't seem to insult the intelligence of Chris_Reeve who clearly implied the contrary of what I am saying and which is why I said these obvious truths. If you look back and read his comments you will see exactly what I mean.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2017
Where does that polar bear article does it state that AWGblah blah bullsh*t?
@richd*ckhead
i will use small words so you can comprehend: that wasn't the argument the idiot eu hannes/reeve was posting - in fact, she/it said that link was representative of how scientists ignore empirical evidence for the media belief promoted in said mass media

you should use this link: http://www.readingbear.org/

The bigger picture is that all of the b.s. 'facts'
until you can refute the evidence with reputable evidence of your own falsifying AGW, then your argument is demonstration of how you believe faith based delusional belief over science and evidence
thanks for validating my links above

again
When your anonymous "scientists" make a claim. ... you can all but guarantee that claim is false
and if you could prove this you would be the hero of big oil and the anti-science idiots arguing against climate science

you've provided belief over evidence

again
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2017
the hero of big oil

Stumpid doubling down on his stumpidness.
Tell us Stumps, what date did you stop burning fossil fuels?
If you haven't stopped, then tell us, which big oil company is holding a gun to your head to make you.
howhot3
5 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2017
It seems to me that the Denier goon squad just are too stupid to do the simple homework of opening their eyes there @anti-goreacle. The decline of the trees is just one aspect that obviously comes from the increase in average temperatures (as well as a host of other species that support that symbiotic relationships that make up a forest and eco-system). So as I read your reply, it seems that you can't even answer your own question. Like why would you not want to stop burning fossil fuels given the damage to global prosperity that it is doing?

There are so much better energy sources coming.

antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2017
Denier goon squad....

Oh lookee..his mancrush, Al, took a laxative and look what pooped out. It's none other than howshat and what a surprise he's feeling the globull warming and still spewing what Al pumped into the empty space between his ears.
howhot3
5 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2017
Oh lookee..his mancrush, Al, took a laxative
Sounds like something the @anti-Goracle does every night. So thanks you for your BS but you didn't answer my question pleeb. The decline of the trees is just one aspect that obviously comes from the increase in average temperatures (as well as a host of other species that support that symbiotic relationships that make up a forest and eco-system). So as I read your reply, it seems that you can't even answer your own question. Like why would you not want to stop burning fossil fuels given the damage to global prosperity that it is doing?
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2017
" took a laxative and look what pooped out."
--------------------------------

From women's dirty underwear to the anal orifices of others, I have had enough of goricle. Please take your fecally-obsessed mind elsewhere.

Thanks.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2017
When your anonymous "scientists" make a claim

How are they anonymous? Their names are on their papers. Mostly their friggin' email addresses are on their papers. If you have a problem with the science (or need an explainer) then just drop them a line and ask them nicely.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.