Insanity: global warming will cause all the trees in Europe to disappear

From the NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY and the “playing with climate models for doom outcomes is too stupid to be science” department.

The WUWT “artistic model” for this paper.

Envisioning a future where all the trees in Europe disappear

Using climate models to take a deeper look at the regional effects of global warming

Vegetation plays an important role in shaping local climate: just think of the cool shade provided by a forest or the grinding heat of the open desert.

But what happens when widespread changes, caused by or in response to global warming, take place across larger areas? Global climate models allow researchers to play out these kinds of thought experiments. The answers that result can serve as a warning or a guide to help policymakers make future land use decisions.

With this as a backdrop, a team of researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and Justus-Liebig University Giessen in Germany decided to use a regional climate model to see what would happen if land use in Europe changed radically. They looked what would happen with air temperature, precipitation, and temperature extremes if Europe were completely deforested to either bare land or just ground vegetation. They also considered what might happen if Europe’s cropland were converted to either evergreen or deciduous forests.

The researchers knew that climate change impacts tend to be underestimated at a regional level, “because the projected global mean temperature changes are dampened by averaging over the oceans, and are much smaller than the expected regional effects over most land areas,” the team wrote in their paper, recently published in Environmental Research Letters. “This applies to both mean and extreme effects, as changes in regional extremes can be greater than those in global mean temperature up to a factor of three.”

“We wanted to perform a quantitative analysis of how much land cover changes can affect local climate. Important transitions in the land use management sector are envisioned in near future, and we felt important to benchmark the temperature response to extreme land cover changes”said Francesco Cherubini, a professor in NTNU’s Industrial Ecology Programme, and first author of the study. “Decisions regarding land uses are frequently taken at a subnational level by regional authorities, and regional projections of temperature and precipitation effects of land cover changes can help to maximize possible synergies of climate mitigation and adaptation policies, from the local to the global scale.”

Future extreme land use changes are not as improbable as you might think. As the global population continues to grow, more land will come under pressure to produce food.

Alternatively, demand for crops for biofuels could also drive what kind of vegetation is cultivated and where.

One future vision of what the world might look like, called Shared Socio-economic Pathways, estimates that global forest areas could change from about – 500 million hectares up to + 1000 million hectares in 2100, with between 200 and 1500 million hectares of land needed to grow bioenergy crops. In fact, the higher end of this range could be realized under the most ambitious climate change mitigation targets.

Changes in land use can have a complicated effect on local and regional temperatures.

When the ground cover is altered, it changes how much water is retained by the soil or lost to evaporation. It can also affect how much sunlight the ground reflects, which scientists call albedo.

The researchers knew that other studies had shown contradictory effects, particularly from deforestation. Some showed that deforestation reduced air temperatures near the ground surface, and increased daily temperature extremes and number of hot days in the summer. Other studies found increases in the occurrence of hot dry summers.

But when the researchers ran their model to see what would happen if land was deforested, they found a slight annual cooling over the region overall, but big differences locally.

Their model showed that when forests were replaced by bare land, the temperatures cooled by just -0.06 ? regionally. The cooling was slightly greater (-0.13? regionally) if the researchers assumed that forests were replaced by herbaceous vegetation. In some locations, cooling can exceed average values of -1 C.

On their own, these regional changes may not seem like much. But when the researchers looked more closely at how these changes were distributed across the region, they found that there was a cooling in the northern and eastern part of the region, and a warming effect in western and central Europe. They also found that deforestation led to increased summer temperature extremes.

“Regional cooling from deforestation might look counter-intuitive, but it is the outcome of the interplay among many different physical processes. For example, trees tend to mask land surface and increase the amount of solar energy that is not reflected back to the space but it is kept in the biosphere to warm the climate,” said Bo Huang, a postdoc in the Industrial Ecology Programme who was one of the paper’s co-authors. “This particularly applies to areas affected by seasonal snow cover, because open land areas covered by snow are much more reflective than snow-covered forested land.”

The researchers found an annual average cooling across the whole of Europe, but with a clear latitudinal trend and seasonal variability. Despite the average cooling effects, they found that deforestation tends to increase local temperatures in summer, and increase the frequency of extreme hot events.

When the researchers ran their model to see what would happen if cropland was replaced by either evergreen or deciduous forests, they found a general warming in large areas of Europe, with a mean regional warming of 0.15 ? when the transition was to evergreen forests and 0.13 ? if the transition was to deciduous forests.

Much as in the deforestation thought experiment, the researchers found that the changes were stronger at a local scale, as much as 0.9 °C in some places. And the magnitude and significance of the warming gradually increased at high latitudes and in the eastern part of the region. Areas in western Europe actually showed a slight cooling.

Cherubini says that understanding how regional vegetation changes play out at more local levels is important as decision makers consider land management policies to mitigate or adapt to climate change.

“It is important to increase our knowledge of land-climate interactions, because many of our chances to achieve low-temperature stabilization targets are heavily dependent on how we manage our land resources,” Cherubini said. “We need more research to further validate and improve the resolution of regional climate change projections, since they are instrumental to the design and implement the best land management strategies in light of climate change mitigation or adaptation.”

###

Here’s the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aac794/meta

Advertisements

110 thoughts on “Insanity: global warming will cause all the trees in Europe to disappear

      • ISN’T THE WHOLE CONCEPT of CAGW A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT ??????
        Sort of a NIGHTMARE occurring while ostensibly AWAKE !?
        God ! Are there EVER GOING TO BE enough STRAIT-JACKETS ??
        ( ONE immediate benefit though…..it will STOP them getting another HAND-OUT )

      • My thought was if people are wanting to use the trees for fuel they would not leave that much of the stump in the ground.
        I once listened to someone who had been in Berlin during the Russian blockade saying that any piece of wood that was not needed was taken for fuel even bits that were at the top of bombed out buildings with no visible means of access.

        James Bull

  1. More CO2 and more warmth are both good for trees, all of which are C3 plants.

    What deforests continents is cold and drought. Global warming is supposed to cause a wetter world. The models can’t get ECS above an unscary 1.2 degrees C without an assumed water vapor feedback.

    The computer gamers clearly have too much time on their hands.

    • These people weren’t speculating that global warming itself would cause deforestation, but that people might decide to change the landscape to total cropland to supply food to feed an overabundant population and biofuel to power their vehicles.

      Next, they speculate that a “Star Trek” like utopia might develop that allows total forestation of Europe, including areas currently arid or cropland.

      The whole thing is a total “What If” speculation waste of money.

      Under both scenarios, they note averages where that sounds worse, or extremes when that sounds worse.

      SR

      • landscape changes such as clear cutting forests for windmill and solar panel farms and/or biofuel crop plantations…

      • These fools must believe in a completely totalitarian State, because only a profoundly myopic a/o malevolent government would demand any of the things that they are entering into their models. The markets would act very much differently.

        If such a radical concept of cutting down all trees (which assumes apple, apricot and other fruit bearing trees) and replace former forestland with 17th Century farming techniques (rather than greenhouse/hydroponics, etc.) that would most certainly throw civilization into doubt after the first year or two of drought. In contrast, I go to the grocery store and find food grown around the planet. Apples from New Zealand, Michigan, China, Poland, etc. What sort of Malthusian moron would demand that an entire nation’s food supply be locally grown in open air environment with presumed catastrophic Climate Change?

      • Steve,

        “The whole thing is a total “What If” speculation waste of money.”

        Aussies say WOFTAM!!

    • maybe trees are actually scared of CO2 but are just too afraid to say so now but will die from sheer terror of CO2 doubles…..

      Makes more sense than some ideas going around…

      • It’s not likely trees will die from CO2 doubling from current 400 ppm. BUT I’d believe that treeless picture would truly represent the future IF CO2 in the atmosphere were to be cut in half to just 200 ppm.

    • They’re not educated, they’re indoctrinated.

      Abandoning critical thinking and embracing dogma is in no sense “education.”

      • You are describing “schooling” not “education”. Schooling does not necessarily imply indoctrination, but it does inculcate obedience and patterning. Someone “schooled in the arts” is hardly expected to innovate. The educated have a grasp of the reality of things and can adapt the context, or to the context, as needed.

  2. This would be from the adoption of useless energy sources, right? Cutting trees for burning to avoid freezing to death. Technically, due to the climate change scare, though not really due to any changing climate.

  3. We take the output of a broken model, and use it as the input to an unproven model in order to figure out what might happen some time in the far future.
    Universities are scrapping the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality these days.
    PS: I have defended models in recent days, but only models that can be and have been validated against real world data.

    • Wait a minute now! You’re forgetting stage 3! It isn’t all kosher and dusted until you compare…the original broken model with its retarded offspring and then imagine how it is “worse than we thought”!!!

      • Or as Mosher stated the other day. We take the output of high resolution models and compare it to the output of low resolution models. If the two outputs more or less match then you have proven that both models are accurate.
        No need to use real world data at all.

        • I remember way back when, when Mosher made some good conversation. Those days are long past. He makes the most unfortunate comments these days.

          • I remember that, too. Be careful – he may have suffered an illness or injury. I have a friend that endured brain damage from an illness 20 years ago – and subsequently makes little sense, despite a good education in physics. It is sad. His classmates from 40 years+ don’t have the cruelty to call him on his outrageous statements. We just ignore them.
            Mosher’s arguments used to be about the science. Recently, they’ve been ad hominem arguments.

  4. I project that all of the stars in the galaxy will wither and die because of climate change – in ten billion years….

  5. I am sure hope nobody in Phoenix sees this. What would they do with all those trees growing where they can’t grow?

    • Never looked into the stats to see if this is true but I’ve been told multiple times by people who live in Phoenix that overall humidity has been creeping up in the area due to pools, lawns, trees, etc.

  6. In fact, warming will open regions beyond 67 degrees north and south to more trees. By the way, I like what the artist imagines for the Place du Tracadero.

  7. It is time to take the computers away from these overgrown children and make them use Tinkertoys and Erector sets.

    They get paid to come up with this stuff, huh?

    Well, frankly, I think my “world of Mad Max and Khan’ speculation made a lot more sense, because Ceti Alpha VI shifted in its orbit and the entire planet progressively became a desert because of it. I should have gotten a check from some silly institute for that idea.

  8. ooops-

    Urban trees are growing faster worldwide – Phys.org
    Trees in metropolitan areas have been growing faster than trees in rural areas worldwide since the 1960s. This has been confirmed for the first time by a study on the impact of the urban heat island effect on tree growth …
    Search domain phys.orghttps://phys.org/news/2017-11-urban-trees-faster-worldwide…

  9. I believe it. The Greens will cut all the trees down to make room for windfarms. It’s been happening in Scotland for years.

    • They need to cut down the trees so they have enough paper to make the money they’re giving to the wind operators. Wind farms don’t produce much energy, but they sure produce a lot of cash.

      • And the Sun [source of a lot of energy in our orbit, and beyond, although not every watermelon seems ready to admit that] rises in the East . . .

        Auto

  10. It boggles the mind that papers based on speculation substitute for science. Computer output is not observational data, therefore it is not worth discussing in a scientific journal. How low they have stooped to get papers published. Both the authors and journals should be banished from science. there is no place for them.

    • Dr. Bob. You are clearly unaware of the changing world around you. “Observational data”, come on Bob, that’s soooooo twentieth century. Climate science doesn’t need “observational data”. Climate science uses models. That’s the only way you can get the results that you really need want. And then, when the next group of researchers use your model output as their model input, they can get the results they need want.

      Tweaking models to get the results you need want is easy. Nobody sees, nobody notices, nobody cares. But if you use real-world data and it doesn’t show what you need want it to show, you have to tweak it and then you get all those damned denialisationists jumping up and down and shouting about what they call “adjustments” Idiots!! They fail to understand. How can we possibly prove that it’s worse than we thought when the observational data show that it isn’t?

  11. Meaningless drivel. But probable met all the criteria for grant funding on the backs of the taxpayers.

  12. Wow I must be in a daze then, since in my area where it is over 100F about 15 times a summer, there are a lot of trees still living, such as Oaks, Sycamores, Maples, Elms and many more. It reached over 110F for three days in a row back in 2015, and over 100F about 5 other days in the heatwave streak.

    I see that for July Paris average high is about 78F, while in my area it is 95F!

    Lets face it, cities are NOT going to cut their trees down and deliberate deforestation will NOT happen.

  13. The average temperature for June in Paris is 73/57F. The average temperature for Oslo is 69/52F. The Average temperature for Richmond, VA, for June is 86/64F. My back yard has oaks, loblolly pines (60 feet or so) that seem to be growing very nicely. I’m pretty sure if I go south I will see lot’s of trees and plants. If memory serves, during this unprecedented period of global warming, the forested land has increased. Maybe European trees are different.

    • Presumably this is why equatorial Africa and the Amazon have no trees. They can’t! The model says they can’t. So they can’t!

  14. Total fantasy model sport, made worse by totally unrealistic expectations for future land use. It would have more utility as a Rorschach Test of the modeler’s world view, worse-than-we-thought neurosis.

  15. Hahahaha!

    “Liebig” University. Sure, it’s childish humor. But sometimes you gotta laugh.

    • Not only is this part of the Lie Big ,but it is also from “Just Us” University. We can be relieved that they at least published with the disclaimer that it is “Just Us – Lie Big”.

      • gringojay

        Are we certain this isn’t an April fool article? Just in June, to convince us it isn’t an April fool.

    • Justus Freiherr von Liebig (1803-73) made major contributions to agricultural and biological chemistry, and is considered the founder of organic chemistry.

  16. Just what was needed…a report stating that Cutting down All the trees will actually cause cooling…and increase area available for Biofuel crops…
    And decrease evapotranspiration like Kilimanjaro thereby drying the air…and increase the likelihood of desertification and drought from less ambient moisture…
    But hey, it’s a dry heat

  17. I’ve visited a number of areas where there has been large-scale deforestation (Kalimantan, central Brazil, Guatemala) and the people actually living there are unanimous: the weather becomes warmer and drier.
    But of course they are just peons, not Climate Scientists™, so they don’t count.

  18. How about a fantasy world powered by wind and solar energy where people are dying from lack of food, refrigeration, air conditioning, and any modern convenience. Travel has all but stopped. Vacations and tourism along with those that depend on it are things of the past. Everyone remaining are crowded into zones that have perpetual moderate climate and there is no more civilization beyond certain latitudes. Constant wars between people fighting for ideal locations. Average lifespan is reduced to 50 years. Forests cease to exist because they’ve been cut down for firewood. Wild animals and pets have been eaten to extinction. You know, a Green Utopia.

    • Forests cease to exist, huh? Doubtful. I have photos of how stubborn trees are, even when cut down. They have young seedlings growing out of the stumps. I keep pruning back a seedling that is growing next to my gas meter and it just comes right back with more growth.

      Trees are probably the stubbornest critters on the planet.

      As I understand it, New York state 200-some years ago was mostly open and there were farms everywhere. The farms were abandoned and now those places are all heavily forested.

      On another note: planets outnumber humans by an enormous percentile. In one square mile of grass, there are many, many, many more grass plants than there are humans in existence, and that does not include the insects and invertebrates that inhabit those grasses.

      • Here on the Western prairies of Canada we have millions more trees than there were before Europeans came here. Settlers broke the land for crops and effectively ended the cycles of forest fires that killed any trees.
        Trees were planted as windbreaks and spread widely. There are many more even than when I was a kid in the sixties.

        • Also the Indian bands commonly set the prairie on fire to herd Buffalo, causing huge conflagrations. This from diaries of fur traders kept in the national archives of Canada, doubters can check, say Peter Fidler’s Journal of 1792 for a start. He also kept a ledger of daily temperatures for those who might want to check how much the climate has “warmed” since then.

  19. I love the way they “knew” that the forecasts of the future that haven’t happened yet were wrong!

    Far too much science – not just climate science – has completely lost sight of reality. Nobody is standing back and looking at results or statements in any kind of objective, sensible way. Thus we have studies that claim that certain bad things kill more people each year than actually die, or that more young people are starting to smoke than exist and so on.

  20. When progressives take over like in Norway, a beautiful country can change in a nightmare.

    These are the kind of people that use tools like ‘1010 no pressure’ or showing Santa in a melting arctic , falling ice bears out of the sky and scary bedtime stories etc.

    Get them out of universities as fast as possible.

  21. It will reduce the number of trees; to combat this imaginary threat, all the trees will be cut down to make room for unreliable windmills. See Scotland’s efforts for further details.

  22. Anthony

    You have an irritating habit of creating headlines that do not match the article.

    They are not saying “global warming will cause all the trees in Europe to disappear” they are saying “removing trees would cause climate change.” So you have got cause and effect the wrong way round.

    There are plenty of stupid things about this study, without needing to misrepresent it.

    • The article speculates that Europeans will cut down all the trees to make room for more crops due to the imagined decrease in agricultural productivity that more CO2 is supposed to cause sometime in the future.

      • They start “In the different Shared Socio-economic Pathways, global forest areas are predicted to change from about −500 Mha up to + 1000 Mha in 2100” so the range is suggesting an increase is most likely. Granted, they then go on “and between 200 and 1500 million ha of land will be required to grow bioenergy crops” which suggests less land for forest. Perhaps forests are one of the bioenergy crops.

        Note that Anthony’s “after” picture just shows the trees removed, no crop in their place.

  23. …The researchers knew that climate change impacts tend to be underestimated at a regional level, “because the projected global mean temperature changes are dampened by averaging over the oceans, and are much smaller than the expected regional effects over most land areas”…

    Global mean temperature changes aren’t the basis for estimating climate impacts at regional levels. Clueless much?

  24. [Quote from article]”For example, trees tend to mask land surface and increase the amount of solar energy that is not reflected back to the space but it is kept in the biosphere to warm the climate,” said Bo Huang, a postdoc in the Industrial Ecology Programme who was one of the paper’s co-authors. “This particularly applies to areas affected by seasonal snow cover, because open land areas covered by snow are much more reflective than snow-covered forested land.”

    An interesting point. In winter, with a low sun angle to the south most of the day, most sunlight reflects off snow-covered open land, but dark tree trunks standing vertically will absorb the sun’s heat on the south side, and re-radiate it toward nearby ground. Has anyone noticed how snow tends to melt faster to the south of tree trunks than in open or grassy areas? Deforestation can cause cooling in winter!

    As an aside, those pictures of the approach to the Eiffel Tower are a poor example of deforestation. In the “Before” picture, the trees along the right side have their foliage cut into box-shaped blocks. This is frequently done to trees lining a street or courtyard in France, but the foliage of trees left to grow naturally has a more ovoid or cone shape, and their branches shade a larger area. The “Before” picture has already been partially deforested!

    • In coniferous forests ( like most Northern forests) the sun doesn’t get down to the base of the trees at any time of year. This means that the snow stays on the ground until it is melted by higher air temperatures. This can be several weeks later than in open country. Especially on North facing slopes.

  25. Drop me a line when somebody comes up with a computer model that tells them something they didn’t program it to say.

  26. Notice in their dystopian future, much of the deforestation is actually caused by “fighting climate change”, via biofuels, and wind and solar farms. Thus their own bogeyman, “climate change” indirectly causes other bogeymen, like deforestation. Pretty soon, you wind up with Dantes 9 Circles of Hell.

  27. During the previous interglacial period, the Eemian, the Earth was warmer than today with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels but CO2 levels were lower than today. There is no evidence that trees in Europe disappeared during the Eemian. I believe that the continental ice sheets that formed during the last ice age had a more devastating effect on trees than periods or warmer climate and higher CO2 levels.

  28. I think these guys should get out of the science fiction stuff. There are people who are really good at predicting dystopic future Earth’s such as the authors of ‘Hunger Games’, in which the land is heavily forested, and ‘Divergent’, in which plants outnumber humans even in what is left of Chicago.

    I mean, really, I expect to see an apatasaurus trimming the treetops in my back yard, any day now.

  29. We here in Oz are a bit warmer than Europe and there are lots of trees . They tend to grow back after being cut down as well.

  30. Another self satisfaction dreamland scenario by utterly biased clueless scientifically ignorant money wasters.

    What is this? Some sort of effort to write the worst possible fictional nightmares as pretend science?

  31. Is someone paying such folks to sit around and invent fantasy (aka models) about dastardly happenings if the climate warms? It is beyond bizarre. Obviously like many in the USA they have had no history whatsoever. They certainly have not been taught to think critically, though I would imagine they would argue otherwise. I would trust a good science fiction writer before these idiots.

  32. Wow, a really exciting paper – at least it would have been if printed on toilet tissue & donated to the destitute who don’t have any. This is just navel-gazing garbage. What benefit to mankind could possibly arise from the arse-backwards idea these twits acted out in a vain, & expensive, attempt to influence global policy-makers.

  33. …”The answers that result can serve as a warning or a guide to help policymakers make future land use decisions.”
    ===========
    That’s the ticket, never mind the science, this is about influencing the “policymakers”.

  34. “…because the projected global mean temperature changes are dampened by averaging over the oceans, and are much smaller than the expected regional effects over most land areas,”

    This is purely speculative. The models have not been validated, and nothing they project is believable until they are. The idea that weather will vary is hardly news. Claiming that it will vary more is pure speculation. Maybe it will vary less.

    And what are “most land areas” anyway? Where it varies less, that was outside the “most” and if it happens that it appears to “vary more” that in inside the “most”? This is intellectual puffery.

    “As the global population continues to grow, more land will come under pressure to produce food.”

    The population is forecast to stop growing in about 2050 as living standards rise around the world. When land is “under pressure to produce more food” it could be tree crops that are planted, or mixed fields and tree crops. “Crops” doesn’t mean “monocrops”. Advances in agriculture bring multi-cropping with a host of symbiotic relationships known in permaculture as “plant guilds”. This speculative paper seems to have the aura of the New York Horse Manure story where the future is the past, only more.

  35. I think there should also be a link to the press release, because that’s where the juice is.

  36. “Their model showed that when forests were replaced by bare land, the temperatures cooled by just -0.06 ?”

    That’s just crazy. Trees transpire more water than grass and much more than bare land (which dries out within days). The transpiration of water is what keeps the land cool. So if you replace forest with bare land, we would expect an increase in temperature, not a decrease.

    Oh, wait. He said model. That explains everything.

  37. Well, this is certainly true for The Netherlands. Trees are disappearing like snow for the sun because they are cut and sold as bio-fuel.

  38. Landscape has been changing for centuries. The change from 1950 and on has been towards the greener planet. More CO2 seems to be equal with more trees and other green stuff at the earths surface and in shallow waters.
    So, why do we fight this? Ideology? Most certainly ideology!

  39. I reckon they are right, but the reasoning is ‘off target’. The real reason is that ‘climate madness’ will eventually lead to the felling of all trees to feed Drax power station in Yorkshire UK and similar mad projects including home wood burners. All in the name of saving the World from climate disaster.

  40. “We need more research to further validate and improve the resolution of regional climate change projections, since they are instrumental to the design and implement the best land management strategies in light of climate change mitigation or adaptation.”

    Frightening! They haven’t validated anything! They are creating piles of imaginary evidence to support their imaginary fears. The scary part is that they are using their musings as physical evidence that the whole world should do what they say. The argument here is that if you were good at D & D as a teenager, you should now be able to make government policy that will save the world.

  41. The global predictions of climate models are bad enough. Awful. Many of their ardent supporters don’t like to mention regional predictions because they know they are even worse.

    Yet these lame-brains apparently don’t even know that much. Wow. That’s a failure-and-a-half.

  42. In Sheffield they (the Labour council’s paid thugs) are about halfway through bulldozing 17,000 urban trees, turning shaded leafy city streets into barren eyesores.

    They are citing ‘elf & safety’ and the supposed fact that trees cause pollution and breathing difficulties by the emission of VOCs. They have even asserted that trees cause global warming.

    Emails have now been discovered, though, which show that it is merely a cynical cost-cutting exercise – rammed through behind a smokescreen of public health concern.

    The culprits ought to be flogged and sent to prison.

  43. I am the great prophet, and I have an announcement to make:
    One day, you will die. The earth will cease to exist. The universe will continue to expand and cool. The sun will burn out, and the universe will eventually have no heat, no light and no life.
    It will be dark, at near absolute 0 degrees, and all that will exist will be some remnants of stars and planets, but they will be in total darkness. This is what cosmologists refer to The Heat Death of the universe.
    This will ALL happen, unless God exists and chooses something differently.
    I figured I’d let everyone know what’s coming, in case you’re interested. Trying to control the temperature of the climate isn’t going to help with any of this.

  44. I enjoy a certain study which I’ve pursued over the years. Recently I reread some of my papers…there were several mistakes which I need to correct as I’ve learned more, thankfully I don’t try to publish this material as there is a small number interested. It would be embarrassing to have to constantly retract then rewrite then retract. My subject has never been laid down as”pat” and can’t change with understanding. That doesn’t seem to bother these Non-Scientific scare mongers who are actually acting the place of prophets…and they are false ones at that.

  45. Nice misrepresentation WUWT. Deforestation is not the result of warming, as you headline suggests, but the result of population pressure on land usage. If you want to rubbish the article, first report it accurately, then point out the massive global drop in birth rate, now approaching 3 kids per family, down from 7. Probably due to womens lib and womens education, that will cause a population drop in a few decades.

    Then point out that Holland is the second biggest food exporter in the world, by gross tonnage, after the US, and that for such a tiny country to achieve this is a clear sign of the land usage efficiency of modern farming. And they do it cheap. They are selling chickens to Nigeria, they can produce them so cheap.

    Stick to the facts WUWT, dont hype or distort. Dont be like the common alarmist media, please.

Comments are closed.