• Nick Sorrentino

Climate scientists battle it out in NY Times and NATURE, Trees actually CAUSE 'climate change'?

We've mentioned before that we have done some work in the area of a carbon tax. We assessed it with people in Washington who were/are very pro-carbon tax and who would like to create government policy and have influenced it in the past. We after 2 years of examining it could not justify such a tax in any way. In fact we had to part with some beloved colleagues because of our conclusion.

It was clear to us that nothing was clear about climate change at all, except that the people who thought it was the biggest problem almost universally insisted that the government had to take a much greater roll in the lives of human beings. We saw this as extremely dangerous. We continue to.

We also saw first hand that what Al Gore and others have called "settled science" isn't anywhere NEAR "settled". Fashions move through the climate change community every few years with new conclusions and new villains. Below is a great example of this. The article was published in Nature which is about a "legit" as one can get. It's from 2017 but it informs a current debate going on in the community of climate scientists. However, as we said, one thing remains settled within the community no matter the change in fashion - government must regulate more. And sadly that is the main reason many people push climate change as a policy priority. They don't care about the "climate". They care about furthering a government dominated world. Watermelons as they are called. "Green" on the outside but red, as in socialist red, on the inside.

For the record we are for planting trees, lots of trees, regardless of what any study says. Trees are good things.

(From Nature)
Whereas earlier estimates based on measurements of atmospheric carbon flows suggested that tropical forests might be carbon neutral or even a net sink, more-recent studies — including ones based on data from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite — agree broadly with this recent paper, says David Schimel, an ecologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California. He suspects that human activities such as starting fires and natural factors including droughts have dealt a severe blow to forests’ ability to store carbon.
The study authors estimate that the world’s tropical forests release approximately 425 million tonnes of carbon annually, equivalent to roughly 5% of the globe’s annual fossil-fuel emissions, and about five times more than an estimate in a highly cited 2011 paper2 that relied on ground-based forest inventories.