bushwacked Posted May 27, 2011 Share Posted May 27, 2011 “Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rain forests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?” the congressman asked Mr. Stern, according to Politico. “Or would people be supportive of cutting down older trees in order to plant younger trees as a means to prevent this disaster from happening?” [Rohrabacher] continued. Forestry experts were dumbfounded by Mr. Rohrabacher’s line of questioning, noting that the world’s forests currently absorb far more carbon dioxide than they emit — capturing roughly one-third of all man-made emissions and helping mitigate climate change. “He’s seriously confused,” said Oliver Phillips, a professor of geography at the University of Leeds in Britain and an expert on terrestrial carbon storage. “He’s just got half of the equation. Natural things decay, of course, but they also grow.” The idea that cutting down forests would result in a net reduction of emissions is “crazy,” Dr Phillips added. “The need is to reduce deforestation.” Senior GOP Leader on Science! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Typical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 “Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rain forests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?” the congressman asked Mr. Stern You've got to wonder about the IQ of our elected leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 You've got to wonder about the IQ of our elected leaders. Why do you continue to feed the troll? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Oh so he's a Baptist who doesn't understand how trees work who supports the Taliban. I bet this guy is awesome at parties. Dana Rohrabacher voiced support for the Taliban when they seized power in the 1990s, visiting Afghanistan when it came under their control, saying that the Taliban would provide "stability", and eliminate threats to the United States. He also claimed the Taliban "intend to establish a disciplined, moral society". He said he believed complete Taliban control over Afghanistan would be a "positive development", that they were "devout traditionalists, not terrorists or revolutionaries", and that "sensationalist" media coverage of the Taliban's introduction of Sharia law was "nonsense".[16] On April 10, 2001 it was revealed that Rohrabacher met with top Taliban leader Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, a foreign minister who directly advised Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar in Doha, Qatar, where they discussed possible American assistance to the Taliban, including financial aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 How is it possible for one man to be so completely wrong about the patently obvious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 This is clearly a plant by the left wing media to unfairly cast negative perceptions about the right. I blame Obama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 28, 2011 Author Share Posted May 28, 2011 Just because you're a GOP leader on a Science committee, doesn't mean you are committed to Science. In this case you apparently don't need the rationalization process of a elementary aged science student. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Senior GOP Leader on Science! k, forgive me for inserting some science in this man love circle. Young trees really do produce far more oxygen than older trees and also produce far less CO2 via decay. Therefore if we really did clearcut all of the old growth rain forests and plant with young trees we would have a much higher ratio of oxygen/CO2 transfer. But then again I only have 20 years of industrial forestry experience. And an IQ over 8 doesn't hurt. Speaking of which http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...million-degrees and If you morons had the sense you would be ashamed of yourself for your mockery of science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 If you morons had the sense you would be ashamed of yourself for your mockery of science. And its MORANS....the Huddlism IQ has been non existent lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 And its MORANS....the Huddlism IQ has been non existent lately. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads17/k...k1276359007.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads17/k...k1276359007.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 (edited) k, forgive me for inserting some science in this man love circle. Young trees really do produce far more oxygen than older trees and also produce far less CO2 via decay. Therefore if we really did clearcut all of the old growth rain forests and plant with young trees we would have a much higher ratio of oxygen/CO2 transfer. But then again I only have 20 years of industrial forestry experience. And an IQ over 8 doesn't hurt. Speaking of which http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...million-degrees and If you morons had the sense you would be ashamed of yourself for your mockery of science. It got real quiet in here after you posted this. Probably upset you broke up their liberal posting orgy. Edited May 28, 2011 by tosberg34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 It got real quiet in here after you posted this. Probably upset you broke up their liberal posting orgy. I amazed that you even know how to type with your banal posts. Crayon is more your speed . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 28, 2011 Author Share Posted May 28, 2011 (edited) k, forgive me for inserting some science in this man love circle. Young trees really do produce far more oxygen than older trees and also produce far less CO2 via decay. Therefore if we really did clearcut all of the old growth rain forests and plant with young trees we would have a much higher ratio of oxygen/CO2 transfer. But then again I only have 20 years of industrial forestry experience. And an IQ over 8 doesn't hurt. How many years of experience did the terrestrial carbon exchange expert quoted in the original article have? How does the carbon exchange work when a rain forest is burnt to the ground? What happens to the land after deforestation? While your point about the transfer ratio is true, it's one factor in a complex flux and mature rainforests are ultimately large carbon sinks. Per University of Mich: One of the factors adding to the warming of the earth is an increase in greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, contributed by human practices such as the burning of fossil fuels. The canopy of the Amazon rainforest is a major player in the amount of CO2 that is cleaned out of the atmosphere. However current anthropogenic practices, such as deforestation for farmland or wood capital, lead to a major change (i.e. decrease) in woodland in the Amazonian demographic. Not only does this lead to a decrease in habitat for tropical species, but it also reduce the amount of trees helping to rid the atmosphere of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. Furthermore, the practice of burning to clear woodland leads to a massive release of CO2 into the atmosphere, as the carbon that was stored in the tree itself is discharged back into the air during combustion. Therefore, deforestation of the Amazon rainforest leads not only to a reduction of the amount of CO2 taken out of the atmosphere, but also to an increased release of CO2 in the atmosphere. Polk, at the University of the Backwoods did they also teach you that running your air conditioners full-blast with all the windows open will help fight global warming? Edited May 29, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 Polk, at the University of the Backwoods did they also teach you that running your air conditioners full-blast with all the windows open will help fight global warming? I dont think they can afford air conditioners in Oklahoma . . . .I named the path we took driving through that state the "trail of tears". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted May 28, 2011 Share Posted May 28, 2011 (edited) I amazed that you even know how to type with your banal posts. Crayon is more your speed . . . . It appears I'm not the only one with banal posts. Edited May 28, 2011 by tosberg34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 29, 2011 Share Posted May 29, 2011 Actually polk it seems you are talking about a forestry myth. Dr. Ho, actually that is not true. Much of the carbon that will get released is in the soil in the form of roots and such. The last quote in the article by Dr. Law is to that point. What you and Mr. Rohrabacher are saying is complete myth, perpetuated by the timber industry for over a decade, and has been refuted many times by scientists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 It appears I'm not the only one with banal posts. you guys need to stop being banuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Actually polk it seems you are talking about a forestry myth. oh snap, oh snap, come to my macaroni and take a nap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.