Forests fall to beetle outbreak

Forests fall to beetle outbreak

There are 189 comments on the Scientific American story from Aug 4, 2009, titled Forests fall to beetle outbreak. In it, Scientific American reports that:

From the vantage point of an 80-foot tower rising above the trees, the Wyoming vista seems idyllic: snow-capped peaks in the distance give way to shimmering green spruce.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Scientific American.

First Prev
of 10
Next Last
Northie

Spokane, WA

#184 Sep 24, 2009
The Trouble Is wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a generalist; a summarist.
Both sides claim data. Both sides claim the other isn't using "real" science. Both sides claim the other isn't using "real" media. I've read articles on both sides of this.
You said you could convince me in 5 min. You haven't convinced two others posting here.
Have a nice day.
There is nothing close to parity in scientific evidence or opinion in this, although the fossil fuel industries would like you to believe there is.
Earthling

Spain

#185 Sep 24, 2009
Northie wrote:
There is nothing close to parity in scientific evidence or opinion in this, although the fossil fuel industries would like you to believe there is.
This baseless argument that fossil fuel industries are the only support that sceptical scientists have is wearing thin, in fact it's completely worn out.
Try another tactic to convince us that glowbull whining is about to become a catastrophe, because there's no sound evidence that it is.
The best there is, are flawed computer models and a 1F global temperature rise over the last 100 years, nothing precise or substantial, it's basically guesswork, based on the little that climate scientists know about climate change.
truthist

Zephyrhills, FL

#186 Sep 24, 2009
The Trouble Is wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a generalist; a summarist.
Here is my feedback. You are neither. Your posts are not even clear as to what you are asking for. You are confused for sure.
The Trouble Is wrote:
Both sides claim data.
I gave a link to lead you to specify what you mean by data. Did you eve read it? You ar back to square one like a parrot.
The Trouble Is wrote:
Both sides claim the other isn't using "real" science. Both sides claim the other isn't using "real" media. I've read articles on both sides of this.
Am I supposed to read your mind about that? But I mentioned the science academies etc. even though you have stayed general.
By the way, there is only one kind of science and it is real. You are confused when you say "real media." What do you mean by that?
The Trouble Is wrote:
You said you could convince me in 5 min.
Is that what I said? No, i did not. Go back and show what I wrote. I have NOT even tried because you have stayed too general. However, I told you facts that are helpful.
The Trouble Is wrote:
You haven't convinced two others posting here.
I think you are too general and confused. I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you see me as many people? I am one poster who responded to your confused post to help you. And it appears I wasted my time because you maintained generality, which suggests along with other clues you don't know how to ask a question and/or dishonest.
The Trouble Is wrote:
Have a nice day.
You too.
P.S. With this approach, you will find it hard to learn or even get along with "real" people. I feel cheated by you. If you cheat anonymously, you must be a regular cheater in life.
truthist

Zephyrhills, FL

#187 Sep 24, 2009
The Trouble Is wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a generalist; a summarist.
Here is my feedback. You are neither. Your posts are not even clear as to what you are asking for. You are confused for sure.
The Trouble Is wrote:
Both sides claim data.
I gave a link to lead you to specify what you mean by data. Did you even read it? You are back to square one like a parrot.
The Trouble Is wrote:
Both sides claim the other isn't using "real" science. Both sides claim the other isn't using "real" media. I've read articles on both sides of this.
Am I supposed to read your mind about that? But I mentioned the science academies etc. even though you have stayed general.

By the way, there is only one kind of science and it is real. You are confused when you say "real media." What do you mean by that?
The Trouble Is wrote:
You said you could convince me in 5 min.
Is that what I said? No, I did not. Go back and show what I wrote. I have NOT even tried because you have stayed too general. However, I told you facts that are helpful.
The Trouble Is wrote:
You haven't convinced two others posting here.
I think you are too general and confused. I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you see me as many people? I am one poster who responded to your confused post to help you. And it appears I wasted my time because you maintained generality, which suggests along with other clues you don't know how to ask a question and/or you are dishonest.
The Trouble Is wrote:
Have a nice day.
You too.

P.S. With this approach, you will find it hard to learn or even get along with "real" people. I feel cheated by you. If you cheat anonymously, you must be a regular cheater in life.

“Crude, Rude, and Lewd!”

Since: Jun 08

Sayonara Falls.

#188 Sep 25, 2009
truthist wrote:
<quoted text>Here is my feedback. You are neither. Your posts are not even clear as to what you are asking for. You are confused for sure.
<quoted text>I gave a link to lead you to specify what you mean by data. Did you eve read it? You ar back to square one like a parrot.
<quoted text>Am I supposed to read your mind about that? But I mentioned the science academies etc. even though you have stayed general.
By the way, there is only one kind of science and it is real. You are confused when you say "real media." What do you mean by that?
<quoted text>Is that what I said? No, i did not. Go back and show what I wrote. I have NOT even tried because you have stayed too general. However, I told you facts that are helpful.
<quoted text>I think you are too general and confused. I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you see me as many people? I am one poster who responded to your confused post to help you. And it appears I wasted my time because you maintained generality, which suggests along with other clues you don't know how to ask a question and/or dishonest.
<quoted text>You too.
P.S. With this approach, you will find it hard to learn or even get along with "real" people. I feel cheated by you. If you cheat anonymously, you must be a regular cheater in life.
No, I see you as a fanaticist, and you convince nobody. You call others confused yet you seem very confused yourself.
I get along with "real" people just fine. Obviously you do not. You seem more interested in pointing out things that do no exist and accusing people of things they aren't so it will fit your little world.
What's that bit about "cheating?" It seems more like you're cheating yourself with your half-baked statements and theories about other people. Sorry, you're not all that, and neither are your theories. Again, you have failed to convince, and by lowering yourself to name-calling and false accusations, you've lowered your credibility.

P.S. I wasn't asking any questions.

“Crude, Rude, and Lewd!”

Since: Jun 08

Sayonara Falls.

#189 Sep 25, 2009
And by the way, your link was to wikipedia, which is not a good reference. It is nothing not a credible source.
truthist

Zephyrhills, FL

#190 Sep 25, 2009
MeanandNasty wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I see you as a fanaticist,
Mean and nasty.
MeanandNasty wrote:
and you convince nobody. You call others confused yet you seem very confused yourself.
Nobody? How do you know that? You don't. Once again you are confused.
MeanandNasty wrote:
I get along with "real" people just fine. Obviously you do not. You seem more interested in pointing out things that do no exist and accusing people of things they aren't so it will fit your little world.
What's that bit about "cheating?" It seems more like you're cheating yourself with your half-baked statements and theories about other people. Sorry, you're not all that, and neither are your theories. Again, you have failed to convince, and by lowering yourself to name-calling and false accusations, you've lowered your credibility.
Mean and nasty.. I was right about you.
MeanandNasty wrote:
P.S. I wasn't asking any questions.
You are confused. You are here just to be mean and nasty, "MeanandNasty." You must come from a disfunctional familty. Educate yourself in humany and humanities.

“Crude, Rude, and Lewd!”

Since: Jun 08

Sayonara Falls.

#191 Sep 25, 2009
What happened to all your manners and polish? I wrote nothing to be mean and nasty. Once again your credibility has lowered, but it's at the point of being non-existent, and that being the case, you cannot sway people to see your point of view, as evidenced by the others who responded to you.

If you think I'm mean and nasty, then maybe you should go outside and see what the real world is like. I'm a lamb compared to the lions out there. The real world is full of people who never went to debate class, and more importantly, do not care to observe the rules of debate. Real people are biased and opinionated and you will not convince them if you degenerate into suppositions about their supposed character flaws and personalitites. If you want a controlled debate situation, join a debate team. The real world isn't like that.
Angry pen of Elk Mountain

Chattanooga, TN

#192 Dec 13, 2009
Wow, I hope them trees start on fire. I also hope the fd doesn't respond. When the fire does start its going to burn several hundred miles of the Rocky Mountains down. How do you like your forrest? burn't to a crisp? The loggers could have kept the dead semi contained. The Freinds of the Bow can suck a d*ck. By the way global warming is a fraud. This planet is run by cycles of the sun. We do need to worry about carbon emissions though.
frank miller wrote:
What are you some kind of nut case 'Northie,
Spokane, WA #1 and #4?? " More warming means more pine beetles..."??? Oh so I see, according to your
'logic' the bitter cold Wyoming winters should have killed all those beetles, and their larvae!
Conversely reframing an aspect always brings out the fallacy in an argument Northie! Have you ever
thought to be little more cynical? Perhaps log-
gers allow it to happen, as an excuse not a rea-
son to stop the infestations! After all Coloradans
have just won a court case whence their local Fire
Departments wanted to cut down all their magestic beetle infested trees, around their properties,
stopping the perhaps good intentioned FD on their tracks! Hoping some Agricultural College, and University would come up with a fumigant!
Cotton has always been plagued with boll weevil
beetles destroying the cotton seed pod, for centuries! I'm sure that problem has been chemi-
cally/organically mitigated, here in the U.S. and other countries! So why not with the pine beetles!
Obviously something in the bark attracts the
critters, and an antisexual hormone randering
adult beetle larva in the Winter asexual may
be a start Northie!? Or something like that!
F.M.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Medicine Bow Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Utility seeks approval for new Wyoming wind farm (Sep '09) Jul '13 snapping turtle 2
gas plant (Feb '12) Feb '12 old arkie 1
childrens books the boy who didnt try (Jun '11) Jun '11 dave james 2
Election Business Ready Community Grant, Medicine Bow (Feb '11) Feb '11 none of your busi... 1
News Prairie dog shoot draws fire from national group (Jun '06) Jan '10 blue collar american 48
News Plans progress for Wyoming coal-to-gasoline plant (Dec '09) Dec '09 I Am DigitaP 11
News Carbon County wind farm gets permit (Feb '08) Mar '08 tom 3

Medicine Bow Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Medicine Bow Mortgages