If you have an interest in nature and trees, I urge you to visit the adjoining Parks of Kings Canyon and Sequoia in central California. I recently visited there, what an experience it was to see the groves of Giant Sequoias and learn about their relationship to fire.
Giant sequoias are the largest trees in the world; the General Sherman [1,700 yrs. old] is the largest. it is 36’ across at the base and 280’ tall. General Grant is over 40’ at the base, but a shorter height relegates it to the world’s third largest tree. All the large Sequoias have fire scars; some so severe one marvels that they can survive. But survive they do, and can live to 3,000 years old or more. Cindy and I toured interpretive sites in both parks, spent time with park rangers, and observed prescribed fires that are now standard practice to maintain a healthy ecosystem. What we learned vindicates my assertions about fires in the west… And leaves my ill-informed critics, particularly Mr. Panko, with egg on their face.
Pre-settlement, frequent fires were a natural part of the ecosystem. Fuel loads were reduced, thus reducing severity. Giant sequoias have seeds the size of an oatmeal flake. To sprout, seeds need contact with soil, thus the need for fire to knock back brush and consume the layer of pine needles on the forest floor. Post settlement, fire suppression interrupted the process. Suppression in the parks continued for years, but in the 1920s it was discovered that very few Sequoia seedlings existed. It was discovered that fire was needed to create conditions that allowed sequoia seeds to sprout.
Fire suppression also creates other problems. Without fire or harvest, some tree species, mainly pines, become overcrowded. When a natural dry weather pattern develops, these trees are weakened, making them susceptible to attack by pine bark beetles. Half the land in many western states is under federal control, with bureaucrats sitting at a desk thousands of miles away making critical decisions about access roads, fire suppression, and tree harvest. Add to this the rapid expansion of urban development into areas where natural fires could once burn frequently with little harm, and fires become catastrophic.
People who exacerbate these problems do not wish to admit to the decision making that created the situation, so they resort to the tactic of blaming “climate change.” With a compliant media and government swamp dwellers along with the elitist leftist/intellectual crowd, many people are hoodwinked. Don’t buy the B.S. Western wild fires are largely caused by poor environmental decisions that place unreasonable limits on access, tree harvest, and grazing on western federal land, ignoring the advice of experienced land managers and biologists.
A quick word on the Democrat debates; The latest far left wish list:
•Reparations to descendants of slaves.
•Free medical for illegals
•Reparations for same sex couples
•Open borders
•Legalized recreational pot
•Socialized Medicine
•Tearing up the Bill of Rights
•Government funded abortions, infanticide of live babies at the mother’s discretion.
•Taxpayers pay off student loans
•Abolition of the Electoral College
If you support these things, don’t read my submissions. They will just ruin your day.
Lastly, a shout out to Professor Kim Stelson for proving my point about the arrogance of Intellectual Elitists. Thanks Professor, you no doubt have expertise in some things but debate is not one of them. You stated everything I wrote was false, then went on to prove the 1922 Post article was real. You did nothing to refute my claims of a warm climate on earth followed by the mini ice age from roughly the 13th to the 16th century that caused terrible famines. You cannot because the mini ice age did occur, as you well know. So what is left of your attack? A tantrum because Mr. Trump won despite the media, the Washington Swamp, Democratic Dirty Tricks, and intellectual Elitist snobs all being against him. But thanks for writing, your note shows everyone the thought police are alive and well, ready to attack anyone who fails to embrace the far left agenda.
God Bless Dear Readers, Jeff
Kim Stelson says
Dear Mr. Erding:
The facts are these: the Earth is getting warmer, and emissions of carbon dioxide caused by human activities are the major cause. The article you cited was indeed published in 1922, but it has little to do with whether or not global climate change is caused by human activities. As I stated in my previous letter, “Every single one of the facts Erding states is blatantly false or misleading.” Your statements about this article are misleading.
Properly understood, science does not depend on politics or religion.The earth is getting warmer. This is true whether you believe it or not. We are in an existential crisis because of the effects of climate change, and it is necessary for people of all faiths and political opinions to band together to mitigate its effects.
Jeffrey Erding says
@ Kim Stelson, do you take the position that there was no mini ice age? That CO2 levels have not been far higher on earth in the past with a far warmer climate, long before man existed to influence either factor?
Do you feel climate models work? That Climatologists can predict climate a century or more from now?
Are the cost figures I quoted to achieve 100% “green energy” in Minnesota inaccurate? If so what will it cost us? How much will global temps be reduced if we go 100% green? ( which is not achieveable without using nuclear sources.)
You want us to think you have the answer’s. If everything I said is wrong, then you owe us the real info. Or an apology. Your choice, sir.
Aaron Bishop says
Greetings Kim,
I would like to emphasize the 1922 article existed in part, but not in full. As I stated in my own article rebutting Jeff Erding’s claims, the last point was a fabrication. Sources can be found at the end of my article online.
Greeting Jeff,
If you are truly interested in the answers to your questions, I would be more than willing to have that conversation with you.
Are you?
Cheers!
Jeffrey Erding says
@ Aaron Bishop, I already know the answers. What I am after is a response from the learned professor. Thanks anyhow.
Thomas E.H. says
// I already know the answers. What I am after is a response from the learned professor. Thanks anyhow.//
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. – Bertrand Russell
Kim Stelson says
As I stated before, the Earth is getting warmer, and emissions of carbon dioxide caused by human activities are the major cause. It is the overwhelming consensus of scientists that this is true. Scientific evidence untainted by political or religious leanings provides this evidence, documented in numerous articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals based on a fundamental understanding of chemistry and physics, detailed computer modeling and large data sets. I won’t go into details, but none of Mr. Erdings’s statements refute this fundamental understanding.
For readers interested in learning more about climate change, I can recommend The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy by Michael Mann and Tom Toles. Mann is an accomplished earth scientist who clearly, concisely and accurately describes the climate change crisis. The Toles cartoons are delightful. My favorite shows two frogs in a pot of water on a stove. One frog says to the other, “Stove top temperatures go up and down all of the time.”
A rational debate about climate change is challenging since so much money has been spent on disinformation. The same public relations firms that worked on denying that smoking causes lung cancer have been hired by industry to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change. This is why much of the general public thinks that climate change is an open question even though the vast majority of scientists know that it isn’t. For more information, those interested should read Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.
Properly understood, science does not depend on politics or religion. We are in an existential crisis because of the effects of climate change, and it is necessary for all of us to band together to mitigate its effects.
Hawkeye63 says
@ professor Stelson, is that the best response you can muster? A verbose, rambling lecture that failed to answer even 1 of a few simple questions Mr. Erding asked?
Did Mr. Erding ever deny that climate changes? No. He said it has always changed, including long before influence from man.
He quoted facts and costs related to the proposed 100% power mandate, and you did not present 1 scintilla of information to refute that.
What did you do, besides regurgitate the same drumbeat of
” We have to stop carbon emissions or the world is doomed.”?
It’s not fair or reasonable to tell readers Erding is wrong about everything while at the same time refusing to address a few simple items that are germain to the issue.
What you are engaged in is a snobbish, elitist form of character assasination. I find your behavior quite vile and reprehensible, sir. Refusing to defend a claim of improper behavior by another person, which is what you have done, is a cowardly act. Shame on you.
Thomas E.H. says
@ Kim Stelson,
Ignore Hawkeye63 as he is Jeff Erding, or at least they “went to different high schools together”.
@ Hawkeye63/Jeff Erding
//failed to answer even 1 of a few simple questions Mr. Erding asked?//
You’re really a confusing pair of characters.
1. Jeff asks questions.
2. Aaron tells Jeff he is willing to have a conversation about the questions and answers.
3. Jeff tells Aaron that he already knows the answers, but just wants to hear Kim respond.
4. Kim responds to Jeff.
5. Hawkeye63 screams in to defend himself/Jeff saying that Kim wouldn’t answer any of Jeff’s questions that Jeff apparently already knows the answers to.
What an amusing show you put on Jeff/Hawkeye63.
//What you are engaged in is a snobbish, elitist form of character assasination. I find your behavior quite vile and reprehensible, sir. Refusing to defend a claim of improper behavior by another person, which is what you have done, is a cowardly act.//
You find character assassination or defending a claim of improper behaviour vile and cowardly?
Maybe he’s just looking up to your dear leader as a source of inspiration. It seems there’s been plenty of vile and improper words and actions made that you don’t care about. You reserve your contempt for people who disagree with you. That’s cowardly. Standing up to people you disagree with is a cinch. Standing up to people who you usually agree with when they say just as vile things, or finding endless excuses for their incomparable behaviour is the epitome of being a namby pamby.
Jeffrey Erding says
@ Hawkeye, take it easy. We have to realize the professor is out of his comfort zone, dealing with adult people who are not afraid of pressing him on specifics. He is used to the college campus atmosphere, where conservative and or independent thought is not allowed and all he has to deal with are kids who can be easily intimidated.
The readers of FCJ are smart enough to see that the good professor has painted himself in a corner. If he answers my questions, he has to admit he was wrong . This he will not do.
Instead, his plan is to ignore the questions and bloviate and obfuscate ( like Thomas E H) , using the tactic of ” If I can’t blind them with my brilliance, I will baffle them with B.S.”
That works fine in a classroom full of naive teenagers, not so good with adults who see through the baloney. Refusing to address the specifics in this matter is a clear indication of defeat. The readers are plenty smart enough to see that.
@ Thomas E H, Don’t you every get tired of rehashing Hawkeye is Erding thing? You have been doing this for a couple years, it is pretty tiresome.
I prefer to focus on issues and specifics thereof, and all you want to do is change the subject and make everything personal. Why? I say climate has always changed and always will, and CO2 produced by man has much less effect on climate change then the alarmists say it does.
I say a conversion to 100% green energy is not practical or possible in Minnesota without nuclear being a large contributor. I also agree with the study outlined by Issac Orr that shows the 100% plan to be terribly harmful to citizens cost wise, and not effective because the drop in global temperature would be so tiny it could not
be measured.
If you want to discuss issues, fine. If you just want to ignore the issues and trade insults, I choose to ignore you. Your choice
Hawkeye63 says
@ Thomas E.H., by the way, you should break out the dictionary and look up
” succinct”.. Then write another comment with a word that is more appropriate for the insult you wish to convey. 😏
Thomas E.H. says
suc·cinct
[sə(k)ˈsiNG(k)t]
ADJECTIVE
(especially of something written or spoken) briefly and clearly expressed.
Hawkeye63 says
@ Thomas. Exactly. What was not clearly expressed in Mr. Erding’s commentary? And since when is a 700 word commentary supposed to be brief? I suggest you look up words before you write comments. Insults are always more effective with proper adjectives.
Thomas E.H. says
@Hawkeye63
I think the problem was you tried to fit too many topics in the article. It made it kind of rambling. It went from trees, which I liked, to the debates, which was humourous, to your obsession with climate change denialism, which is cute, but extraordinarily telling of your mind’s capabilities to decipher relevant facts about historical climate and modern rates of change.
Not succinct in my view, but I’m glad you care. Don’t look at it like an insult. More like constructive criticism.
Thomas E.H. says
That was about as succinct as Trumps speech about airports in the Revolutionary war.
Hawkeye63 says
@ Thomas E.H. , Mssrs Trump and Erding have something in common…. They have the courage of their convictions and aren’t afraid to go on the public record, all the while knowing that sooner or later they will slip up, make am error or a gaff, and be subject to unmerciful ridicule, often by people who don’t have the guts to go public with their positions. If you don’t fit in the category of spineless people, please accept my apology.
Thomas E.H. says
@Hawkeye63
//They have the courage of their convictions and aren’t afraid to go on the public record, all the while knowing that sooner or later they will slip up, make am error or a gaff, and be subject to unmerciful ridicule, often by people who don’t have the guts to go public with their positions. If you don’t fit in the category of spineless people, please accept my apology.//
Ironic as it is coming from someone who goes by the alias “Hawkeye63”. You wouldn’t happen to be Jeff Erding, would you, or a close relative? I’ve noticed you always come to his defence first and foremost and utilise the exact same sources to get your… umm… facts.
And by //sooner or later they will slip up// you meant sooner and later, right?
Hawkeye63 says
@ Thomas E. H., how observant of you to notice I defend Mr. Erding and use the same sources. That might have something to do with the fact that we are both conservatives and Conservative sources are not exactly common in the pc modern America.
We are not relatives but went to different high schools together.
Do I owe you an apology for my ” spineless people” comment?
Thomas E.H. says
Are you spineless since you are clearly using a pseudonym? Do you owe yourself an apology, mate?
//went to different high schools together.//
Ok Jeff.