I’m subscribed to some of the daily doom sheets, to see what sort of alarm is being raised on a daily basis. The one that arrived this morning was particularly idiotic, and deserves some attention for that exceptionalism.
“Just in time for the holiday weekend”. Gosh. Be sure not to go where the climate is “threatening”. Be sure to take “climate repellant” if you avoid this warning and must camp-out.
Note the source: @sciam Yet another reason to drop your subscription to Scientific American.
This climatenexus outfit is run by some Madison Ave. marketing types it seems, according to the source at the bottom of the email. They obviously know exactly what they are paid to do.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No, I know it’s true because 97% or more of “SCIENTISTS” agree and anyone who doesn’t is a mouth-breathing troglodyte.
Like shown in your recent “About that graph…” article, I suspect these run-for-your-lives-the-climate-will-get-you tweets of panic are created by the equivalent of an art department at SciAm.
/snark
It would be great if all the idiots take this to heart and stay out of the parks. The rest of us would be able to enjoy them more.
People are depressingly servile. Once “an opinion is established” (Soviet term) then they – especially MSM talking heads – will endlessly parrot it without thinking.
People are depressingly servile. Once “an opinion is established” (Soviet term) then they – especially MSM talking heads – will endlessly parrot it without thinking.
Orwell called it “duckspeak”.
— Bad News
A few quotes from the article in question tells all…
“Whether or not you choose to think about the causes of climate change, all you have to do is open your eyes and look around you to see that climate change is real,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell recently said in a USA Today weekly video newsmaker series (ClimateWire, July 2). “So we can no longer pretend it’s going to go away. We have to adapt and deal with it.”
No need to think about causes, after all, “seeing is believing”! The new catch phrase for 21st Century Science?
The secretary cited two 21st century challenges facing the National Park System: One is the need to engage with youth who may be too consumed in the digital world to have interest in the natural world,
Blue Pill or Red Pill?
and the other is to address the changing landscape caused by climate change.
Pave paradise, put up a parking lot?
Unfortunately climate change really does present a threat to many of our National Parks. For example, I live in Montana and Glacier is projected to have no glaciers in two or three decades. In Yellowstone, the die back of whitebark pines represents a severe threat to grizzly bear populations since whitebark seeds represent a major source of food for them, especially in the fall as they are fattening up for the winter.
Seems they are inclined to remove the “i” from sciam.com
In sociology it is called creating the necessary consciousness for collective action. CFSC-Communication For Social Change does not care about physical and social reality. It wants to change the psychological reality–people’s perceptions of what is going on. Change that popular perception of what people are experiencing and what causes it and they can become the force that uses political power to change current existing realities.
That’s why erroneous models in education and the media and what gets grant funding have become the norm, whatever the facts or their longevity. It’s the psychological reality of perception and a belief that there is a problem that must be targeted for change.
Climate Repellent!!!!! Oh my gosh!!! Anthony!! You must sell that as some kind of dry ice spray!!!!! But remember…CO2 free.
“Yet another reason to drop your subscription to Scientific American.”
Sorry, did that last year.
My protest today of cAGW will be to light some charcoal and grill chicken. Local reports have the Washington Cascades full of campers with much the same idea. Maybe the Carbon Observatory-2, or OCO-2, can have a look and confirm.
If ‘climate change’ is now ‘damaging’ the natural environment, why is it not equally reasonable to state that ‘climate change’ created it in the first place? In other words, it’s a null argument, pointless and incredibly stupid.
Oh, crap. I just spent $1500 booking a room at the Old Faithful Inn.
Rattus – claiming something DOES present a threat by showing that people have PROJECTED something that is essentially impossible… not doing yourself any favors.
And I live across the border from you in Alberta. The glaciers are not going anywhere.
“Rattus Norvegicus says:
July 4, 2014 at 12:52 pm
Unfortunately climate change really does present a threat to many of our National Parks. For example, I live in Montana and Glacier is projected to have no glaciers in two or three decades. In Yellowstone, the die back of whitebark pines represents a severe threat to grizzly bear populations since whitebark seeds represent a major source of food for them, especially in the fall as they are fattening up for the winter.”
Keep in mind that is ‘projected’ for Glacier…and well, they haven’t been too good with projections as of late.
And the pine problem is much more complex than a simple ‘it’s climate change’. The last 100 or so years worth of ‘management’ has probably done more to contribute to the problem than any warming has. And by management, I mean the suppression of the natural fire cycle that a pine forest is dependant upon in order to remain a pine forest.
Rattus Norvegicus says:
July 4, 2014 at 12:52 pm
“Unfortunately climate change really does present a threat to many of our National Parks. For example, I live in Montana and Glacier is projected to have no glaciers in two or three decades. In Yellowstone, the die back of whitebark pines represents a severe threat to grizzly bear populations since whitebark seeds represent a major source of food for them, especially in the fall as they are fattening up for the winter.”
__________________
Did you forget your sarc tag?
The glaciers in Glacier Nat’l Park have been in retreat for ~9100 of the past 10,000 years. Grizzlies are an amazingly resilient species and are in no way threatened by any sort of whitebark pine decline. The Grizzly population in Yellowstone has tripled since the 80’s and the population is thought to have reached the natural carrying capacity of the area. As for the pines- how is die back of whitebark pines related to climate change? Any attempts to attribute declines of the whitebark pine to “climate change” have been at best, speculative.
Look at their tag line — “We get up early so you don’t have to” — and recognize how superior they think they are. Relax, dear reader, you’re a lazy idiot so we’ll do your thinking for you.
Another “Oh My Gosh!” nanosecond moment of panic: My sister, my niece, and her friend are right at this moment fishing in the Blue Mountains in government maintained ponds and parks! Send out the ambulance! Fire trucks! Hazmats! They are in a state park! Surely I will be orphaned! I would bet my next paycheck that those fish are full of CO2!!!!!….wait….incoming thoughts….I’m filled with CO2! I MUST run from myself!!! Let’s please pass a law that Pamela Gray must be taxed in order to reduce her bad influence!
The above comment is brought to you by the untold many who swear I am filled with hot air and should indeed have my CO2 taxed.
If Obama would just declare the US southern border a National Park…..
Unfortunately those that exhibit the greatest symptoms of being filled with hot air are those who work ‘inside the Beltway’, closely followed by those who inhabit the halls of academia and news desks everywhere.
The positive side of this is that if the climate kooks stay away, the rest of us can have that much better of a time.
“Whether or not you choose to think about the causes of climate change, all you have to do is open your eyes and look around you to see that climate change is real,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell recently said… “So we can no longer pretend it’s going to go away. We have to adapt and deal with it.”
—
If you look at weather records for any area, you will find that the climate cycles from warming to cooling and from wetter to dryer and back again over time. So, yes, the only option we have is to adapt to it and deal with it. Anything else would be a fools errand.
Gunga Din said:
July 4, 2014 at 2:05 pm
If Obama would just declare the US southern border a National Park…..
————
He has already declared illegal aliens a protected species. They get better care than our Vets.
Happy Independence Day! Enjoy it while you can before it is turned into obama-Dependance Day.
Anthony, sorry for the long comment, but I have wanted to say this for some time.
I have always been uncomfortable with the adjusting, anomalizing and homogenizing of land surface temperature readings in order to get global mean temperatures and trends. Years ago I came upon Richard Wakefield’s work on Canadian stations in which he analyzed the trend longitudinally in each station, and then compared the trends. This approach respects the reality of distinct microclimates and reveals any more global patterns based upon similarities in the individual trends. It is actually the differences between microclimates that inform, so IMO averaging and homogenizing is the wrong way to go.
In Richard’s study he found that in most locations over the last 100 years, extreme Tmaxs (>+30C) were less frequent and extreme Tmins <-20C) were less frequent. Monthly Tmax was in a mild lower trend, while Tmin was strongly trending higher , resulting in a warming monthly average in most locations. Also, Winters were milder, Springs earlier and Autumns later. His conclusion: What's not to like?
Now I have found that in July 2011, Lubos Motl did a similar analysis of HADCRUT3. He worked with the raw data from 5000+ stations with an average history of 77 years. He calculated for each station the trend for each month of the year over the station lifetime. The results are revealing. The average station had a warming trend of +0.75C/century +/- 2.35C/century. That value is similar to other GMT calculations, but the variability shows how much homogenization there has been. In fact 30% of the 5000+ locations experienced cooling trends.
Conclusions:
"If the rate of the warming in the coming 77 years or so were analogous to the previous 77 years, a given place XY would still have a 30% probability that it will cool down – judging by the linear regression – in those future 77 years! However, it's also conceivable that the noise is so substantial and the sensitivity is so low that once the weather stations add 100 years to their record, 70% of them will actually show a cooling trend.
Isn't it remarkable? There is nothing "global" about the warming we have seen in the recent century or so.The warming vs cooling depends on the place (as well as the month, as I mentioned) and the warming places only have a 2-to-1 majority while the cooling places are a sizable minority.
Of course, if you calculate the change of the global mean temperature, you get a positive sign – you had to get one of the signs because the exact zero result is infinitely unlikely. But the actual change of the global mean temperature in the last 77 years (in average) is so tiny that the place-dependent noise still safely beats the "global warming trend", yielding an ambiguous sign of the temperature trend that depends on the place."
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2011/07/hadcrut3-30-of-stations-recorded.html