Plant,

Here's another line on trees dying which could hold some answers, or at least clues:

[WARNING: some people who believe in AGW mythology may find this material confronting and offensive]

“A good example of adaptive cycles in comes from the spruce/fir forests that grow across large areas of North America…Among the forests’ many inhabitants is the spruce budworm…EVERY 40 TO 120 YEARS ,POPULATIONS OF SPRUCE BUDWORMS EXPLODE , KILLING UP TO 80 PERCENT OF THE SPRUCE FIRS …In a young forest, leaf/needle density is low, and though budworms are eating leaves and growing in numbers, their predicators (birds and other insects) are easily able to find them and keep them in check. As the forest matures and leaf density increase the budworms are harder to find and the predators’ search efficiency drops until it eventually passes as threshold where the budworm breaks free of predator control and an outbreak occurs…The managers in this system … become locked into using ever-increasing amounts of pesticides because the industry wouldn’t be able to cope with the shock of a massive pest outbreak. The industry had little resilience ,and yet the continued use of chemicals was only making the problems worse…”

From : "Resilience Thinking" by Brian Walker and David Salt [ a CSIRO publication!] pages 79-80.

SPQR,

Finance isn't "true science". It is predicated on human whim.
Climate science "is" complex - and yet denialism is promoted and perpetuated in the main by those who are "not" climate scientists, those who have no real expertise or training in the various fields. More often than not, links put up to debunk AGW by skeptics are to sites run by people who are not adequately trained in scientific disciplines (if they have any training at all).

Your adage of "a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing" is nowhere better demonstrated than in the myriad denialist sites bounced around by skeptics. They are wholly constructed from an incomplete knowledge - and bolstered (and often funded) by those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo, not to mention presenting an attraction to those who are drawn to conspiracy theories....that is the really, really scary part.

Dear SPQR,

Now I’m a little embarrassed for you.

It is pretty obvious that you have nothing. That's okay but to flail about like you have just done is childish.

And don't get me wrong being childish is often a great defensive mechanism when one’s world view is threatened.

I have often seen the response in fundamental Christians when one tries to have an intelligent discussion with them about the Bible.

However I will admit to thinking you were made of slightly sterner stuff.

Oh well, back to the basic a,b,c’s.

Dear SPQR,

Could you please tell me what physical property of CO2 would you like me to dismiss so that I may disregard the warming implications of humankind doubling its concentrations in our atmosphere?

I have repeated variations of this question to all and sundry throughout this thread and the only response I have so far was from yourself, and it was just some mantra about CO2 always following temperature rises. Well it certainly hasn’t this time has it?

I even asked it three times of that blow in, blow out, blowhard Hasbeen and he also tosses up some insult about my intelligence and disappears.

You have followed his script but at least you have stuck around.

Sometimes the adult thing is just to admit you don't know. That's okay because then I will move on to someone else who might.

Oh, if there is even one of the many points I made in my last post that you can challenge intelligently let me hear it, perhaps without the baby’s rattle though.

SPQR: [WARNING: some people who believe in AGW mythology may find this material confronting and offensive]

I wouldn't bother SPQR cSteel would read anything that might disagree with his/her blinkered outlook.

Csteel to Jayb on Sahul time: What you don't get to do after serving up that piece of claptrap is to demand I spend time examining another one of your offerings on this thread.

Oh, Lovelocks Quote is on Page 14 of his book "GAIA."

Pray tell, all you greeny, lefties, are you on a roster? Is a couple of months on blogging duty the cost of that nice comfortable job in academia or the party?

The way a new bunch of totally misinformed, enthusiastic activists keep popping up here, then disappearing, it would appear so.

Do you become disillusioned with the crazy global warming scam, after being given some of the facts, & drop out?

Or is it that maintaining the belief is too hard, when confronted with the facts, & you have to be relieved of your duty, before you become converted.

Tell me, in view of the fact that the scam is now dying, how long can most last, before reason finally gets through, even your deluded perception? At what rate do you find your assigned bloggers converting to the truth & light?

Excuse me Mr Non-scientist (aka Hasbeen),

"...after being given some of the facts..."

Which facts would they be? Layman's facts, denialist's facts...amphibious landing-craft facts. (thank you Basil Fawlty)

If some of us pop off for a while, it's because we get tired on the spiel from La-La Land.