Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

I have a serious (perhaps stupid) question, please.

Is the CO2 humans exhale, harmful to the environment?

The very fact that eco groups shut down logging has resulted in the LOSS of many scrubbers of CO2. Eviros fighting enviros..

Its all in how they are utilized.

When you can have the best of both worlds its a no brainer.

And caring and profit are NOT mutually exclusive.

That even in some very poor volcanic soils.

That Co2 is capable of reflecting radiation equally from earth or space points to another balancing mechanism you guys refuse to acknowledge.

Its not even a drop in the bucket when compared to the millions of acres of dead timber that died due to insects and disease and NON treatments of those compartments.

Simply because of the shear volume, the rubber stamping review process,and the huge cash flows ino it,the junk papers are overwhelmingly on the pro CAGW side.

Many people have brought forward paper after paper refuting many of the premises this phony science is based on. Only people that are massively ideologically biased could fail to miss it.

That Co2 is capable of reflecting radiation equally from earth or space points to another balancing mechanism you guys refuse to acknowledge.

The current forest composition can be attributed to the past century (or more) of natural environmental conditions and disturbances, as well as past management decisions, including fire and timber policy. Many wildfires have been suppressed throughout the twentieth century, leading to denser stands of trees in a susceptible age category in some forest types, such as ponderosa pine, and leading to less diversity of age classes
in other areas. Timber harvest practices of the late 1800s and
early 1900s also contributed to more even-aged and even-sized
stands that are now susceptible to beetles (Negron 1998; Fettig
et al. 2007; Bentz et al. 2009).

Climate conditions
Two climatic factors are likely interacting to facilitate the magnitude of the current epidemic: 1) drought-induced stress on host trees, which reduces defense mechanisms (Mattson and Haack 1987); and 2) warmer winter temperatures that increase overwinter survival of beetles and can speed up reproductive cycles in some species (Cole 1981; Bentz et al. 2009). Together, these two factors have created prime conditions that have resulted in the marked increase of bark beetle populations (Raffa et al. 2008). The bark beetles’ tolerance to cold is dynamically Figure 4. A) Beetle galleries; B) Blue-stain fungus in lodgepole pine.

The bark beetles’ tolerance to cold is dynamically dependent on the temperature regime experienced by a given species, so a simple low temperature threshold cannot fully explain the role of temperature in beetle survival (Bentz and Mullins 1999). However, when prolonged drought is coupled with increasingly shorter periods of severe cold and overall warmer winter temperatures, the likelihood of all bark beetle species’
survival greatly increases (Bentz et al. 2010).

Even though i have enough training and classes to have a masters in forestry

Even though i have enough training and classes to have a masters in forestry, youll not believe what i have to say. so much for all that first hand experience i guess.

Soils dry out due to loss of crown.

Fast forward to Central Oregon-the Bend Bulletin recently ran a piece that claimed junipers were an invasive species that out-compete native grass for water. The Bulletin claimed a mature juniper soaks up 40 gallons a day and dessicates the soil, and that it is practically a civic duty to cut as much juniper as possible to save the land from drought. Total BS, but really bad ideas in range management seem to be practically immortal.