Science is a Sacred Cow
The science is not open to debate or question.
Two comments:
The missing animals are hiding in the previously uncounted trees.
And, I wonder if this unreckoned biomass, which takes up enormous amounts of CO2, throws off the disaster calculations of carbon-dioxide driven global warming (not that the true believers would ever admit that).
I just wish the people who make the decisions would take some of these “scientific findings” with a grain of salt before they do something stupid that affects the rest of us. That was some big “mistake” in the counting of those trees. How big is the margin of error in certain other “scientific findings”? Like climate change,icebergs melting,polar bears disappearing,etc.,etc.
Many “scientists” are people with political agendas. Their are an embarrassment to science. In celebration of their tree undercount I’m going to chop down a few trees today and burn them. Hey, eco-nuts...enjoy the burn.
Like Bigfoot. We know they're there because they've been seen for hundreds of years; we know they're rare and cautious because they are seldom seen; but going extinct? Actually their range appears to be increasing unless there are a whole big bunch of hoaxers out there!
Can we now cut this bulls**t “save the trees” crap and go back to using paper grocery bags???
I’ve heard there are more trees today in the U.S than when Lincoln was president . . .
Bad typo here from the American Thinker Blog - s/b 400 BILLION as shown in included quote. Easy error but bad editing.
That being said, 400 billion to 3 trillion is such an underestimate as to be head-shaking. That is an error of counting 1 for every 75 that are there between 2 studies a decade apart, in other words a real whopper! Especially when the referred article also mentions 15+ billion trees cut every year, a rate that would deforest the planet in 27 years without replanting.
Of course in the article there is the obligatory hand-wringing about how horrible humans have been to the trees; "In fact, the study concludes that the global number of trees has fallen by roughly 46 percent since the start of human civilization." Does a tree grow in Brooklyn?
The original source of all of this is "Mapping tree density at a global scale," published Wednesday (09/03/15) in the journal Nature.
Well, I do recall our lord and master President Obeyme DID declare it was time to put science in its rightful place not too long ago (”rightful place” being solidly in defense of government edicts and declarations, which is as it should be, if those guys really want their grant money). File under “Who you gonna believe”.
That's silly.
The only way I eat left-handed New Guinea green spotted tree frogs is with much more than "a grain" of salt.
FMCDH(BITS)
Science is an arm of the DNC.
Pray America is waking
The author needs to check his math or data.
If there are now 3 trillion trees rather than the previously thought 400 million, the undercount is 2.999600 trillion.
My guess is the previous count was 400 BILLION.
The method of enumeration is not a reliable method to arrive a a conclusion by induction.To arrive at a true conclusion by induction one must determine a proven causal relationship between entities that necessitates the conclusion.
Just WHO are these "scientists" and what proof do they have? Maybe animals aren't going "extinct", but are being transported to other planets.
You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.
Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.
Obama Is Ignoring the Science on Climate Change
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here, and here