[CharlesAnthony]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Actually, I'm pretty confident that if pushed I can find you at least one study on how forests, in general, have been growing worldwide.

But yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if large tree forests were disappearing. In fact, one would expect it.

It must be expected.... if you believe the world is a zillion years old.

Nevertheless, faith in the age of the earth is irrelevent. There is obvious evidence within living history. Man destroyed all of the trees. Think of the giant weatern redwoods. The east coast was covered with them too long ago. There are still a few secluded monster trees around but they are hidden from the public. The value of that lumber rises with time.

Re-watch the film Avatar to get more truth in plane site. The film is a realistic portrayal of the world man has destroyed.

[N_Fiddledog]

Chuckling at the last bit, but like I said, one would expect fewer large trees. New forest in general though, that's growing.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Sub-Saharan Africa is not the Middle East.

But if you're going to get technical, it wouldn't be a case of "just making stuff up" then, would it?

It would be a case of possibly mixing up locations.

But yeah, I've heard about the burning charcoal thing too. Actually, I thought it was burning scrub woods.

I heard it as an argument against the scare stories about how the poor were going to die worldwide when the full feared apocalypse of weather hit.

The way the argument went was if these yahoos really cared about the poor in places like Africa they'd allow them a cheap energy source like coal.

There's some sort of giant estimate stat saying how many poor Africans die from lung disease as a result of burning scrub woods.

BTW, speaking of greenery, isn't the planet greener now than it was before the days when it was starved of Carbon Dioxide?

It's making stuff up. It's throwing a handful of dirt in the air to confuse matters. Kind of like you with your line about how you never denied climate change but show up to denounce every single finding supporting evidence of climate change. Gas lighting.

More CO2 equals more greenery? Perhaps. AS far as the earth is concerned it is neither better nor worse with a warmer troposphere. The issue is that humans will have to pay adaptation costs, and that the indigent will feel them most keenly.

[CharlesAnthony]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

New forest in general though, that's growing.

Forgive me but in considering CO2 and O2 and 3V3RYTH1N6 else, the magnitude is significant. We are talking trees that were 50x larger+taller than anything city-slickers have ever seen.

The trees created enourmous ground/cloud cover. It was literally possible to travel across continents by climbing branch to branch, rarely ever touching the ground.

The climate/protection from the wind under the trees was totally different from that above the trees.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Kind of like you with your line about how you never denied climate change but show up to denounce every single finding supporting evidence of climate change. Gas lighting.

Except it's a fact I never denied climate changes. That would be ridiculous and I'll call you a liar every time you suggest I said it.

BTW, speaking of "neologisms," I think you need to study up on their definitions before you use them.

Gas Lighting isn't a reason-based argument against a hypothesis like coming climate crises from fossil fuel use.

Gaslighting would be what you do when you tell me I said something I never said to hopefully shake my confidence.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Kind of like you with your line about how you never denied climate change but show up to denounce every single finding supporting evidence of climate change. Gas lighting.

Except it's a fact I never denied climate changes. That would be ridiculous and I'll call you a liar every time you suggest I said it.

BTW, speaking of "neologisms," I think you need to study up on their definitions before you use them.

Gas Lighting isn't a reason-based argument against a hypothesis like coming climate crises from fossil fuel use.

Gaslighting would be what you do when you tell me I said something I never said to hopefully shake my confidence.

Gaslighting is when you, on the one hand, declare that you've never denied AGW, and on the other argue every single instance of evidence in support of it. It's been the modus operandi of the deniers from the start.

[CharlesAnthony]

The entire environmental industry is gaslighting.

Lying is the modus operandi of the lab coat shills.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Gaslighting is when you, on the one hand, declare that you've never denied AGW, and on the other argue every single instance of evidence in support of it. It's been the modus operandi of the deniers from the start.

Nobody I take seriously "denies" greenhouse gas warming is a thing or anthropogenic addition of CO2 may add some warming. The argument has always been how much, is it harmful and even if you wanted to do something to alleviate the potential harm that might happen at some unknown point in the future, what would be the best way to go about it - stuff like that.

You've been told this for a decade. Lying to suggest you've been told something different is Gaslighting.

[N_Fiddledog]

The argument has always been one of climate sensitivity and now even your guys are backtracking as the article linked to in the OP shows. Climate sensitivity is less than what they used to declare as doctrine.

So on that general thought we were right. You and yours were wrong. Some climate scientists like Richard Lindzen would suggest you have a ways to go though. If noticing that is gaslighting, so be it, but it's not.

[Zipperfish]

I don't think so? Remember Eureka? Remember me telling him that I thought that the climate sensitivity constant was too high, and that it would be better calculated using radiation physics alone, and he called me a denier and all that stuff. I always thought it was two high and that ignoring feedbacks (thereby, basically, predicting a temperature rise of about 1 deg C for every doubling of CO2). It's what I've been saying for years also.

But you've been pulling this act where you deny being a denier, but every single time a study comes out providing evidence of climate change you've been in here with your links to Anthony Watts or the Daily Caller or some right-wing garble about how it's all bullshit.

Gaslighting.