The only way one can get a forester to leave a warm house on a wet morning with nothing for company but a billhook and a mule to tend trees is to let him own it. "Ownership" doesn't even have the right context; the man has to know that his son's right to the profits of the log he shapes today is beyond question.

The forests of Europe have had centuries of shaping or they simply would not exist. The kind of mad, anything grows anywhere, groves I can find a short bike ride from here in California aren't likely in England or France.

Try to explain to a people focused on quarterly profits a business where one tries to limit net harvests to soil incomes; I wouldn't know how to do it. Explain to Wall Street that the berries bring birds and the birds bring soil. Good luck.

In the US labor doesn't have the rights and the land is clearcut.

Put the Carbon Back

The negative feedback has been found and its impact on global warming has been shown from measured temperatures.

First the proof that a strong negative feedback exists which is cancelling out the positive feedback.

Satellite temperature data gathered over the last 30 years show no difference in temperatures changes in the troposphere as compared to surface temperatures. This is a significant finding  since the troposphere should show changes some two to three times that on the surface. This is a fundamental characteristic of green house gas theory. All 22 models used by IPCC to predict future temperature rises, show this results, but actual measurements do not.  The reason is that the IPCC models cannot represent clouds properly and hence do not take into account a large negative feedback that is taking place.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22604

What is this negative feedback?

Professor Richard Lindzen, The Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT has pointed out this deficiency in the models back in  the 80s  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/

He concluded : "This is a terrifically important feedback, "because if you double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but don't have any feedback within the system, you only get about 1 degree of warming (averaged over the entire globe). But climate models predict a much greater global warming because of the positive feedback of water vapor. Yet these models are missing potentially another negative feedback (the infrared iris) which can be anywhere between a fraction of a degree and 1 degree--the same order of magnitude as the warming." (The net result would then be that the Iris' negative feedback cancels the water vapor's positive feedback. The warming for a doubling of carbon dioxide would then return to the 1°C that scientists predict would occur if there were no feedbacks.)
This paper was not received very well as you might imagine from the anthropogenic global warming crowd. However the findings were verified by Roy Spencer last year in a peer reviewed paper: http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-war ... Roy Spencer builds a very convincing case for this conclusion: "I believe that it is the inadequate handling of precipitation systems -- specifically, how they adjust atmospheric moisture contents during changes in temperature -- that is the reason for climate model predictions of excessive warming from increasing greenhouse gas emissions. To believe otherwise is to have faith that climate models are sufficiently advanced to contain all of the important processes that control the Earth's natural greenhouse effect.".

I am not a climate change scientists but I can read,I can reason and I have guestions on global warming that are not being answered.