Greenhouse Emissions of Agriculture

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:25 AM GMT on July 27, 2013

Share this Blog
24
+

Greenhouse Emissions of Agriculture

In the last blog there was a comment by peregrinepickle on the emissions from agriculture. It started:

“It sounds like they may be putting the cart before the workhorse with this study. A 2010 survey of the literature found that too few studies on GHG emissions and the impact of various alternative farming practices have been done in US agricultural regions, including the Great plains Ironically, more research is being done in this vein in China. So it seems premature to appeal to US farmers re: willingness to adopt certain practices before knowing exactly where you are going with it.

Agriculture, compared to other sources, is not a huge contributor to GHGs, relative to the contributions by industry, transportation, and utilities. In the US farming is responsible for 6% of the overall emissions of the six major GHGs. However, farming does contribute about 25% of all CH4 emissions in the US, which is major, as this gas is 21-33 times more potent in warming potential than CO2.”

Back in April and May I wrote two entries on the emissions from agriculture (first entry, second entry). These two entries highlighted both the complexity of calculating the greenhouse emissions related to agriculture as well as suggested some of the controversy associated with the calculation. The controversy is especially high in the calculation associated with livestock.

The amount of direct fossil fuel emissions from use of fuels in machinery and pumps for agriculture is modest, as stated in peregrinepickle’s comment. Those numbers are based on a 2010 inventory by the Environmental Protection Agency. Here is a link to the chapter that details the agricultural inventory. The greenhouse gas emissions compiled in the chapter on agriculture are for greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, especially methane and nitrous oxide. For the EPA inventory, the carbon dioxide associated with agriculture is accounted for in the energy inventory. Additional emissions and removal of greenhouse gasses are calculated with land use, land change and forestry. The national forests are part of the Department of Agriculture.

The accounting with soils and forests influences, greatly, the budget of emissions associated with agriculture. Based on soil management agriculture can remove and store substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. In the U.S. agriculture is a mature and extensive enterprise, and we are not aggressively converting forest to agricultural land. In fact, the amount of forest is increasing and, therefore, can be accounted as an agricultural removal of carbon dioxide. This fact of increasing forest land is not the case in much of the world. World-wide, deforestation as forest is converted to agricultural use, especially rangeland, accounts for much of the carbon footprint of agriculture. Phil Robertson in an article to appear in the Encyclopedia of Agriculture estimates the total greenhouse gas footprint of agriculture is between 26 and 36 percent (thank you Professor Robertson). This range seems soundly based in the synthesis of research, and the number I would quote based on the current state of knowledge.

As detailed in Livestock’s Long Shadow and stated in the entirety of peregrinepickle’s comment, the impact of agriculture reaches far beyond the relevance to climate change. Notably there are impacts on water quality and land quality, and, in my opinion, the impact of nitrogen (fertilizer) pollution is one of the most under appreciated sources of environmental degradation. Management of this whole portfolio of environmental impacts is one of the special challenges of the agricultural sector of human activities.

The mix of greenhouse gas emissions, the details of the practice of land use, the role of biological processes, and the potential to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and store them in soil and biomass characterize the climate impact of agriculture. Agriculture is also vulnerable to climate change. Since agriculture is a highly competitive, market-dependent undertaking, market response to weather and climate can amplify weather-related impacts. Agriculture becomes more entangled with the climate problem, when we consider the possibility of biofuels to replace some of our fossil fuels. This complexity complicates the accounting of climate impacts, but also offers some of our best opportunities to improve our management of the environment. Agriculture is no doubt an important player in our management of climate change, and notably absent in President Obama recent speech on climate change.

A primary source of agricultural information is Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. An often cited document is the 2006 documentLivestock’s Long Shadow. There has been much criticism of this report, especially in its calculation of the emissions of the transportation sector. The original authors did modify their specific statements about transportation. As noted in an earlier blog in this series, there is substantial controversy about the impact of agriculture. Therefore, I end here with a set of reference materials that I have used.

EPA National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data

PDF of Agriculture Chapter of EPA Inventory of Emissions

Agriculture’s Role in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Chapter 8: Working Group 3: IPCC 2007

Energy Efficiency of Conventional, Organic and Alternative Cropping …

Livestock and Climate Change

and to appear

Soil Greenhouse Gas Emissions and their Mitigation, G. Philip Robertson, W.K. Kellogg Biological Station and the Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI 49060

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 813 - 763

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24Blog Index

Quoting 806. yoboi:




If you cherry pick the start year you can account for 17 yrs of no warming.....but if you go back 30 yrs there is a warming trend....

You don't need to go back that far even.



Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
812. yoboi
Quoting 809. Birthmark:

Where is CE's scientific evidence that "most" are improperly sited?

Naga's link is more than sufficient to refute the implied point of CE's raving. It simply doesn't matter whether the thermometers are sited properly or not. It's just one more adjustment, among many, that have to be made to the raw data. That adjusted data agrees nearly perfectly with other means of measuring temperature, such as satellite data. So the siting is of no consequence.



I said they account for it......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2334
Quoting 802. Naga5000:


1)Wrong Link
2)Wrong Link
3)Wrong Link
4)Wrong Link
5)Wrong, as it is too vague. What is he even referring to? Link


So 0 for 5 and using all ready debunked refuted nonsense. Does this help?


Naga, you've earned yourself a stethoscope! :-)

Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 855
810. yoboi
Quoting 807. Neapolitan:
"Falsely" accusing"? You gotta be kidding. Even for someone as confused about the issues as you appear to be, that's pretty naive, don't you think?

Whatever. I'll just say this: anyone who's spent any time at all around here who can't (or pretends not to) immediately spot the river of untruths spewing from Eastwood's mouth and instead engages in a little concern trolling certainly isn't worth the time and energies of the more productive members of this forum. So, TTFN....


I think eastwood cherry picks data.....but is that the same as lying neap????????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2334
Quoting 804. yoboi:



the link in number 2 does not dispute improper siting....they do say they account for it......

Where is CE's scientific evidence that "most" are improperly sited?

Naga's link is more than sufficient to refute the implied point of CE's raving. It simply doesn't matter whether the thermometers are sited properly or not. It's just one more adjustment, among many, that have to be made to the raw data. That adjusted data agrees nearly perfectly with other means of measuring temperature, such as satellite data. So the siting is of no consequence.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 804. yoboi:



the link in number 2 does not dispute improper siting....they do say they account for it......


Correct, the improper citing isn't an issue like some make it our to be. It's a known bias and is corrected for. That's proper scientific work. Besides, the satellite record shows the same warming, and we don't have poorly placed satellites.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3371
Quoting 796. SouthernIllinois:

No, let's not. Falsely accusing others of lying will not get you anywhere. It only reflects upon your character. Time to keep an open mind respect each other, including CEastwood. That is the best approach.

Time to move on as another alluded to. I think I am about finished talking about this.
"Falsely" accusing"? You gotta be kidding. Even for someone as confused about the issues as you appear to be, that's pretty naive, don't you think?

Whatever. I'll just say this: anyone who's spent any time at all around here who can't (or pretends not to) immediately spot the river of untruths spewing from Eastwood's mouth and instead engages in a little concern trolling certainly isn't worth the time and energies of the more productive members of this forum. So, TTFN....
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13509
806. yoboi
Quoting 802. Naga5000:


1)Wrong Link
2)Wrong Link
3)Wrong Link
4)Wrong Link
5)Wrong, as it is too vague. What is he even referring to? Link


So 0 for 5 and using all ready debunked refuted nonsense. Does this help?




If you cherry pick the start year you can account for 17 yrs of no warming.....but if you go back 30 yrs there is a warming trend....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2334
Quoting 803. LAbonbon:


Why, yes, Naga, yes it does. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you guys have the patience of Job.

Maybe. But those boils are gettin' a bit itchy today. lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
804. yoboi
Quoting 802. Naga5000:


1)Wrong Link
2)Wrong Link
3)Wrong Link
4)Wrong Link
5)Wrong, as it is too vague. What is he even referring to? Link


So 0 for 5 and using all ready debunked refuted nonsense. Does this help?



the link in number 2 does not dispute improper siting....they do say they account for it......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2334
Quoting 802. Naga5000:


1)Wrong Link
2)Wrong Link
3)Wrong Link
4)Wrong Link
5)Wrong, as it is too vague. What is he even referring to? Link


So 0 for 5 and using all ready debunked refuted nonsense. Does this help?


Why, yes, Naga, yes it does. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you guys have the patience of Job.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 748. CEastwood:
Let me get this straight:
1) We have had no global warming for almost two decades.
2) Most of the world's temperature stations are improperly sited.
3) The supposed link between rising temperatures and CO2 has (as Neapolitan is fond of saying) been thoroughly debunked.
4) Fallacious models can't predict past temperatures much less future temperatures.
5) Every prediction made by global warmists has gone by the wayside.

And it goes on and on and on. Just exactly why should we believe in anything that warming proponents forecast?
(not rhetorical)

Link


1)Wrong Link
2)Wrong Link
3)Wrong Link
4)Wrong Link
5)Wrong, as it is too vague. What is he even referring to? Link


So 0 for 5 and using all ready debunked refuted nonsense. Does this help?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3371
Quoting 800. SouthernIllinois:

How can you say that with a straight face. Even I cracked a grin. Such is life.

So you can't explain the difference...which is no surprise.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Post 748 is a good example of CE's lying.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 794. SouthernIllinois:

Not the same thing and you know that Birthmark. Nice try.

It is precisely the same thing. CE comes here to inform us that physics is wrong; climatologists are wrong; climatologists commit fraud; and that cold days somewhere mean AGW is wrong.

He does all of this repeatedly and without valid evidence.

Now, if you see a difference, feel free to educate me. I'm here to learn, after all.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 795. Naga5000:


Where did he tell the truth? Let's start there.


LOL

Zactly
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 127814
Quoting 793. SouthernIllinois:
I'm just glad we can move on and respect one another. And the next time CEastwood lies to the blog like some of you are falsely and frivolously claiming, please point it out for the rest of us to see. It seems we all are not on the same page here.


Where did he tell the truth? Let's start there.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3371
Quoting 780. SouthernIllinois:

I think we need to take a deep breath and relax. I really do. And I also really think we should take a moment to remember we are all here trying to learn and blog about climate science. And links to climate websites are TOTALLY okay. I promise. :)

Daisyworld. I got news for you. There is no problem. There is no problem with CEastwood posting or any of his science links he chooses to post. If there was, well, I am sure admin would be here to remove them. But it is not your job Daisy nor is it mine or anyone else's but admin to try to decipher what is material relevant to the blog topic and what isn't.

And accusing CEastwood of lying is not very nice, and perhaps could get you or someone else into trouble. Please refrain from doing that because it isn't right. We are all in this together to discuss climate.

Please let admin decide what is allowed here and not. I think we all need to take a moment to relax and respect one another, including CEastwood. When we get along and share material in a great fashion, that is how we learn more. And that I think is a great goal!

That's crap, SI. If I went over to Masters' blog and posted that hurricanes aren't warm-core systems and that all the models and meteorologists are wrong, I would be rightfully cut to ribbons by the other bloggers. If I did it repeatedly, I'd be banned for trolling. Again, rightfully.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 779. MisterPerfect:


So when are you and Mr. Gore going to make it official? lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting 771. SouthernIllinois:

And if nothing is done just because you want it to be done, will you still go on and on about it? Or will you leave CEastwood alone?

For the record, there is nothing wrong with what CEastwood is doing. No different from what you are doing. And that is blogging about climate science in Dr. Ricky Roods blog.

Not true. CE is blogging crap, not science. Any facts that manage to find their way into CE's post unmolested are invariably out of context, and so, useless to reasonable discussion.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
My mistake, I just found one of his first posts, take it however you want. "April 19th, You make the rules now? Simply because a new person starts posting, he is automatically a "troll" because he refutes your religion? I've been on this blog much longer than you. I changed my handle for a couple of reasons, but not because I was banned. I was asked to change it was the main reason."

"April 17th I'd be willing to bet anyone I'm not Splayer. I'm not a new member, but I'm not splayer either. I was asked to change my handle a while ago, because it wasn't appreciated by certain members of this blog. I thought it was rather amusing. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "troll?" LOL I'm sorry if I disturb your own little protected world in this blog, but, I'm sorry, you can't be protected your entire life. More on why AGW is man-made. Pun intended."

Ironically, our friend NeapolitanFan disappeared around the same time. Seems like a nice guy deserving of respect.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3371
Quoting 780. SouthernIllinois:

I think we need to take a deep breath and relax. I really do. And I also really think we should take a moment to remember we are all here trying to learn and blog about climate science. And links to climate websites are TOTALLY okay. I promise. :)

Daisyworld. I got news for you. There is no problem. There is no problem with CEastwood posting or any of his science links he chooses to post. If there was, well, I am sure admin would be here to remove them. But it is not your job Daisy nor is it mine or anyone else's but admin to try to decipher what is material relevant to the blog topic and what isn't.

And accusing CEastwood of lying is not very nice, and perhaps could get you or someone else into trouble. Please refrain from doing that because it isn't right. We are all in this together to discuss climate.

Please let admin decide what is allowed here and not. I think we all need to take a moment to relax and respect one another, including CEastwood. When we get along and share material in a great fashion, that is how we learn more. And that I think is a great goal!


My breathing is perfectly fine, SouthernIllinois. Thank you.

I've got news for you as well: There is very much something wrong with what CEastwood has posted.

What CEastwood posted were lies.

Proven lies about climate science.

And this is a climate science blog.

If he/she chooses to re-post proven lies within a climate science blog, then -- according to WU community rules -- he/she is responsible for them.

If you or CEastwood wish to discuss climate, fine. Discuss climate.

Not lies.

At least not if you don't wish such lies to be pointed out by someone.

And, you're right. If WU admin wishes to continue to allow lies about climate science to be perpetuated here, that is their business. However, I will also continue to point out such lies when they are posted. WU Admin can also decide whether or not that is appropriate as well.

I think we're done here on this subject.

At least I am.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 855
Quoting 765. yoboi:




Have you ever reached out to eastwood in a positive way??????

I've complimented his exquisite taste in footwear. What more does he want? lol

Look, if someone comes into a roomful of people and spout accusations and nonsense...reaching out probably isn't going make a difference. Such a person has an agenda that no amount of fact or attempts at civil discourse is going to change.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Remember, this Guy is a Big Cannon..

LOL

Rohrabacher's climate change denialism and misunderstanding of science is well-documented. He's suggested that prehistoric climate change could have been caused by "dinosaur flatulence," and that clear-cutting rainforests would eliminate greenhouse gas production.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 127814
Dana Rohrabacher, GOP House Science Committee Member: 'Global Warming Is A Total Fraud

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a longtime member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, recently brushed aside concern that the wildfires currently scorching across his state and causing millions of dollars of damage have anything to do with climate change. In fact, he told constituents at a town hall that "global warming is a total fraud," employed by liberals to "create global government."

In a video captured by Lee Fang of The Nation, Rohrabacher laughed off a claim made last week by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that the unusual intensity of this year's wildfire season should give rise to a more serious debate about how climate change is affecting the temperature and length of the dry season.

"Just so you'll know, global warming is a total fraud and it's being designed because what you’ve got is you’ve got liberals who get elected at the local level want state government to do the work and let them make the decisions," Rohrabacher said. "Then, at the state level, they want the federal government to do it. And at the federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives."

The friendly town hall audience seemed to agree with Rohrabacher's contention that humans were incapable of changing earth's climate, giving a collective chuckle. The congressman then appeared to make an offhand reference to Agenda 21, a set of UN-created sustainable development recommendations that the tea party and other Republicans have put forth as an example of how the government will use the threat of climate change to seize property and control the lives of its citizens.

"It's step by step by step, more and bigger control over our lives by higher levels of government. And global warming is that strategy in spades," Rohrabacher said. "Our freedom to make our choices on transportation and everything else? No, that’s gotta be done by a government official who, by the way, probably comes from Nigeria because he’s a UN government official, not a US government official."

Rohrabacher's climate change denialism and misunderstanding of science is well-documented. He's suggested that prehistoric climate change could have been caused by "dinosaur flatulence," and that clear-cutting rainforests would eliminate greenhouse gas production.

Regardless of Rohrabacher's beliefs, California's still-young fire season is expected to be more devastating in 2013 than it has been in years, thanks in part to both climate change and the fact that the state is still awaiting the Santa Ana winds, which typically fuel the blazes. The Associated Press reports:

California fire officials have battled 4,300 wildfires, a stark increase from the yearly average of nearly 3,000 they faced from 2008 to 2012, said Daniel Berlant, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
Until last week, those fires had already burned 111 square miles or more than 71,000 acres, up from 40,000 acres during the same period last year. The annual average for acreage charred in the last five years was 113,000 acres, he said – roughly 177 square miles.

Meanwhile, the congressional body designed to address climate change and its causes has been stacked with Republicans who refuse to consider that a threat exists. Earlier this year, Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) was assigned chair of the House Science Subcommittee on Environment, which plays a direct hand in many areas related to climate change. Stewart, like 55 percent of congressional Republicans, including a handful in the House Science Committee, doesn't believe that humans are responsible for rising global temperatures.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 127814
Quoting 781. SouthernIllinois:

Well if he or she indeed was like Naga is claiming, then wouldn't you think admin would remove the user since it is a blatant violation of the rules to circumvent a ban by creating another account(s).

Until then, accusing another of violating the rules is not right. We all need to respect CEastwood.


This is absurd, you want respect shown to a user that post lies masquerading as science in a science blog. Also, WU implemented an amnesty plan for old banned users as long as they deleted their other accounts, this happened around the same time period. My whole point, regardless of the banned user aspect, is someone going to a climate science blog and then posting gibberish that looks like science is not deserving of respect. He isn't posting "his" science, he just isn't posting anything with any scientific credibility. I think you may be acting a little bit naive about our troll friends, no offense.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3371
Earth: Scary Scenario by 2100?
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 127814
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 127814
Al Gore chides Reuters for not blaming Alaska fish death on global warming

Posted at 6:14 pm on August 9, 2013

That’s easy. If you ask Gore, everything causes global warming. The proof? Al Gore said so.

The man who wants the world to believe that the oceans will rise due to unnecessary energy consumption and the burning of fossil fuels but who lives in a mansion by the ocean and sold out to Big Oil tweeted his displeasure with Reuters today:



Al Gore ✔
@algore

Reuters fails to acknowledge global warming while writing about huge Alaskan heatwave and fish death. More from @NWF: http://ow.ly/nIVGu

4:05 PM - 9 Aug 2013


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I ignore anyone who posts non science off the cuff BS.

That's not what were here for.


I've no time for denialist's, as they matter not.


Those who post nonsense usually never have any science with them here.


WUWT, Climate Progress, etc,etc..are not Science.

And as a member here, I can control who I want to see.

Thus da controls.








Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 423 Comments: 127814
777. yoboi
Quoting 776. Naga5000:


CEastwood was a banned blogger who created a new account, he is not here to discuss anything, all his posts have been in this forum, posting nonsense. However, if either of you wish to reach out to him, be my guest. I won't be participating.


I did not know he was a banned blogger and created a new account.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2334
Quoting 774. SouthernIllinois:

I agree with you wholeheartedly. He or she is a relatively new poster. He or she joined a day after I did. We should grant him or her some respect. We should treat him or her like anyone else. He or she does post very relevant climate links and brings great discussion to this blog!

We're all in this together trying to figure out the climate to try to make this a better world. CEastwood is a good person. We cannot gang up on on another and cast one another out just because we do not agree with him/her. That would not be right. We need to all keep an open mind, respect each other and respect CEastwood.


CEastwood was a banned blogger who created a new account (I'm pretty positive this was the case), he is not here to discuss anything, all his posts have been in this forum, posting nonsense. However, if either of you wish to reach out to him, be my guest. I won't be participating.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3371
Quoting 771. SouthernIllinois:

And if nothing is done just because you want it to be done, will you still go on and on about it? Or will you leave CEastwood alone?

For the record, there is nothing wrong with what CEastwood is doing. No different from you.


If WU Admin hasn't the time to follow up on a public nusance, then that is a separate issue. I have done my duty as a member of the WU community by pointing out the problem.

And you can cease the "stop picking on CEastwood" line of thinking. I've taken up an issue with what they have posted and NOT their individual person. So you're feigning ad hominem when there is none.

Finally, there's a HUGE difference between CEastwood and I. I have not posted a single lie. CEastwood, on the other hand, has posted MANY lies.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 855
773. yoboi
Quoting 769. Naga5000:


He has never been nice, nor willing to discuss anything. Just a post and run person, most likely being paid to do what he does.


naga sometimes you have to be the better person.....I noticed eastwood does not have that many post and has joined not to long ago......I was just asking if anyone had ever treated him nice......If not maybe give it a try and maybe he will have a normal conversation......if you or others have tried that approach and it did not work... then I can understand.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2334
Quoting 771. SouthernIllinois:

And if nothing is done just because you want it to be done, will you still go on and on about it? Or will you leave CEastwood alone?


Leave him alone? A user who comes here to do nothing more than disrupt the blog with nonsense, never sticks around for any discussion on the issue, and posts conspiracy laden pseudo science links, we should just leave alone? Why purpose does that solve?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3371
Quoting 763. SouthernIllinois:

Instead of addressing it in a public forum, why don't you take your concerns with WU through a private form of communication?

We really don't want to hear your complaining.


Why should I sit by silently when somebody is shouting lies from the internet-equivlant of a rooftop?

Is it complaining when I call out that person for lying to everyone?

Is it humiliating someone when THEY are the ones who strode onto the rooftop and started shouting lies in the first place?

Why should I be nice to a person who is throwing stones into a crowd from that rooftop just to draw attention to themselves?

While his/her words may not physically hurt people (as stones do), their words hurt the dissemination of factual science. It takes up space in a communications forum that might otherwise be used to draw attention to the real science.

CEastwood deserves no haven for posting lies, and I'm not going to privately address what is -- by definition -- a public nusance.

And for the record, I HAVE taken my concerns to WU Admin about individuals such as CEastwood, so your point is moot.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 855
Quoting 768. yoboi:


I was just wondering if anyone ever reached out to him in a nice way......his join date is not that long ago and has only 69 post........


He has never been nice, nor willing to discuss anything. Just a post and run person, most likely being paid to do what he does.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3371
768. yoboi
Quoting 767. SteveDa1:
Unfortunately, CEastwood is afflicted with the denial disease. This is not a time to turn our backs on him, but rather to help him.

First he needs to be open-minded, though...


I was just wondering if anyone ever reached out to him in a nice way......his join date is not that long ago and has only 69 post........
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2334
Unfortunately, CEastwood is afflicted with the denial disease. This is not a time to turn our backs on him, but rather to help him.

First he needs to be open-minded, though...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
765. yoboi
Quoting 762. Birthmark:

I agree. I've never seen that poster post anything other than crank "science" and weather reports.




Have you ever reached out to eastwood in a positive way??????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2334
Quoting 763. SouthernIllinois:

Instead of addressing it in a public forum, why don't you take your concerns with WU through a private form of communication?

We really don't want to hear your complaining.

We want to hear your complaining about his complaining even less. ;)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469

Viewing: 813 - 763

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
72 °F
Mostly Cloudy