Warning: Missing argument 2 for grabber::strip(), called in /var/www/vhosts/comptonlawgroup.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-df/wp-df-patch.php on line 33 and defined in /var/www/vhosts/comptonlawgroup.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-df/wp-df-grabber.php on line 19 Warning: Missing argument 3 for grabber::strip(), called in /var/www/vhosts/comptonlawgroup.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-df/wp-df-patch.php on line 33 and defined in /var/www/vhosts/comptonlawgroup.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-df/wp-df-grabber.php on line 19 Warning: Missing argument 4 for grabber::strip(), called in /var/www/vhosts/comptonlawgroup.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-df/wp-df-patch.php on line 33 and defined in /var/www/vhosts/comptonlawgroup.net/httpdocs/blog/wp-df/wp-df-grabber.php on line 19 Three trillion trees and global warming | Blog - Attorney Elgin Aurora Naperville Rockford Joliet Waukegan - Illinois Lawyers | Compton Law Group

Three trillion trees and global warming

By brittketchadmin | Posted in News on Friday, October 23rd, 2015 at 6:26 pm
Be Sociable, Share!

I had to laugh to myself when I read a Chicago Tribune article on trees.  It appears that now we know for certain that there are over 3,000,000,000,000 trees on earth (that’s three trillion for those who lost track of zeros).  Until I read the article, I was perfectly comfortable with, though ignorant of, the fact that there were only 400,000,000,000 trees (four hundred billion!).  Who’d have thought that “scientists” would be off by 87%!  There were actually 7.5 times MORE trees than scientists thought.  Put another way, they were 87% wrong and only 13% right.

Then the punch line:  the Yale “scientist” boldly asserts that “[s]ince the spread of human influence, we’ve reduced the number almost by half, which is an astronomical thing.”  Well, until his most recent “study,” that meant that we lost 400 billion trees to get down to the 400 billion we thought we had.  Now, as of yesterday, I know that we’ve lost 3 trillion trees to get down to the three trillion we now “know” we have.  There should be kindling everywhere!  So, my question is, what the heck does “since the spread of human influence” mean, and how can a guy whose previous estimates were off by 87% be confident about anything, much less the number of trees lost since the dawn of time?

So, yes, I have my doubts about science and studies and “experts.”  After all, experts and scientists have, in the last 45 years, told me that we were entering an ice age (early 1970s), that we were running out of oil (late 1970’s), that it would take “decades” to get Lake Michigan back to its “normal” level (1980s), Y2K would cause global chaos (1990s) that bird flu would sweep the globe and kill millions (early 2000s) and that, horrors, we had only 400 billion trees!  Don’t even get me started on killer bees, fire ants, acid rain, and the hole in the Ozone Layer.

Of course, no Tribune story would be complete without a reference to Global Warming.  “Trees pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as they grow, and cutting or burning them down releases that carbon again. So that means that deforestation is making global warming worse — and it also means that if we were living on an Earth with close to 6 trillion trees, rather than 3 trillion, climate change would be less severe.”

True, maybe, but now you have 3 trillion trees instead of 400 billion.  If trees were so important in the fight against climate change, was that ever part of the “calculus” that the global warming models used?  Are the global warming models off by 87%?  After all, if scientists could be that wrong about the number of trees which are right here to count (hey look, a tree!), how much more doubt is there in the infinitely more complicated process of predicting the global climate 100 years from now, or tomorrow.

Please don’t call me a “climate change denier.”  Call me a skeptic with decades of proof that experts have been wrong time and again, and hesitant to give credence to another government-funded, media-fueled catastrophe in the making.

Be Sociable, Share!