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.
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.”
Is projected less than predicted? Projections start with random states, not with the correct state. And it still worries you? What’s gullibility squared?
“Ginger says:
July 4, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Oh, crap. I just spent $1500 booking a room at the Old Faithful Inn.”
Have a great time. I first saw Old Faithful when my family drove through the park when I was 11 years old. That and the Grand Canyon are two of the sites that wildly EXCEEDED my expectations.
Don’t forget to go see the canyon in Yellowstone. Much easier to get to bottom and back up. Stunning.
Link to the SciAm article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-threatens-u-s-national-parks/
Hi Pamela. As you’re filled with so much Co2, don’t you mean there should be a Tax to reduce your bad Flatulence? Please continue to influence, to dispel the effluence.
Best regards, Eamon.
Rattus Norvetticus, caught with his intellectual pants down and blinders on.
Sadly, he will learn nothing from the education thrust upon him, free of charge.
They say climate change threatens US national parks. I have also been told that up to at least 2010 the heat was on. Hotter than we thought. The earth has been warming since the end of the little ice age. Here are the terrible results, just see the awful US fire data. We must act now.
Global warming has on the whole been good for US trees.
Here is the link for the Smithsonian study in 2010
http://sercblog.si.edu/?p=466
Funny how glaciers disappear every so often, even in reality. Adapt, it’s what we are best at!
Climate forecast for July 4: Warning issued for Hurricane Andrew. Climate forecast for Saturday and Sunday: Pleasant conditions except for Nova Scotia climate.
July 4, 2014 at 1:47 pm | Pamela Gray says:
Oh, my ! When I first skimmed that I read ” … to reduce her bad flatulance!” Forgive me, Pamela, I’m just a boy 😉
Rattus Norvegicus says:
“I live in Montana and Glacier is projected to have no glaciers in two or three decades.”
Ok, let’s assume for a moment this is true – based on what, I’m not sure, but I’ll play.
1. True or False: these glaciers have always been there.
2. The answer to the above is, of course, “false,” since the glaciation happened as part of the last ice age. Which means that since we’re no longer IN an ice age, you would EXPECT the glaciers to the recede, not so?
3. In that case, isn’t it just as likely that natural processes are in effect here, that have nothing to do with anything mankind did?
4. No matter what the cause, what do YOU propose ought to be done about it? It seems that there’s nothing anyone could do, regardless of the cause. So why are people who see things as you do, so insistent that we’ve got to hobble the economy of the USA when it’s not going to have any effect at all on what’s happening to the glaciers?
5. You types still never answer how you propose to get China and India to stop emitting theCO2 that YOU claim causes all this.
In short, what do you really have to offer but handwringing and calls for the government to confiscate more private wealth?
Which national park? I know some bears can be a problem, but if they can sustain the weather so can we. Well almost. Wrap up well on the higher peaks. I appreciate what Bill said, some years ago while studying a unit “The Earth in Crisis?” One book I read about pollution, was China had burning coal surface fires that equaled all the gas emitted in America for cars and trucks. And Indonesia 4 year long bush fires, were caused by coal surface fires too. But I suspect they can be said to be not man made? Like a bubbling volcano, I don’t think so, it is caused by faulty mining, and cost billions to put out.
“Oh, crap. I just spent $1500 booking a room at the Old Faithful Inn.”
Did you not see the movie “2012”??? (sigh)
“We are a sponsored project of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, with funding provided by a number of foundations and philanthropies.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zm04HDnHTS4J:climatenexus.org/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Background noise is Ocean Mysteries with Jeff Corwin – Georgia Aquarium on ABC, because I’m on antenna and it’s 1 of 2 main channels that come in good-ish.
He was in Australia looking at koala bears, who eat the poisonous eucalyptus leaves, and Climate Change IS making eucalyptus leaves thicker, waxier, and more toxic, thus koala bears are now an indicator species of Climate Change, which is why the pretty female researcher was energetic and thrilled to be collecting koala poop in the wild, as koala poop will provide information on the effects of Climate Change.
Because eucalyptus trees are currently healthy enough to divert more energy into otherwise-useless protective surfaces and consumption deterrents, as can happen with enhanced growing conditions such as increased ambient CO2 levels, we shall find the effects of Climate Change in koala poop.
I shall now spend the rest of the day trying to purge from my mind such stellar self-perpetuating science-like stupidity.
Dear Moderators,
In my last comment on the first line, I forgot the greater-than symbol on the href part of the link right after the closing double-quote. Can you please fix it?
Thank you for reading.
[fixed – happening a lot with you lately, suggest you simply put in like this:
See this link: http://wattsupwiththat.com
To minimize chances of mistakes and cause us extra work -mod]
““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). ”
well, that is pretty scary, that the Interior sec thinks that just by looking around we can personally detect changes happening at tenths of a degree per decade when the daily temperature swing is up to 30 deg F, when people can’t remember what the weather was like 4 yrs ago, and when everyone is easily suggestible. You can just as easily “directly observe” goblins in the dark or conspiracies in the news (oh, wait….). What dear Sally is looking around and seeing is merely her own preconceptions. Can she “see” that the forests are growing faster? Because that is also well-documented.
Rattus Norvegicus says: “climate change really does present a threat to many of our National Parks.”
No. Since politics created the parks (or at least the boundaries and management thereof), politics also represent the sole threat. Things _IN_ the park might be threatened by warmer/colder/wetter/drier.
“the die back of whitebark pines represents a severe threat to grizzly bear populations”
That is a somewhat more sensible comment. What do you propose to do about it?
It’s not sciam per se but almost everything copied verbatim from this source to their online edition: “Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. http://www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500″
The assumption is that global warming is real and human caused. All reporting emanates from that assumption:
I do not know if the printed edition contains the same stuff. Years ago I was a subscriber, now I am not a subscriber and was banned from commenting in the online edition for a very mild comment about Michael Mann’s offer to download a model (in MatLab) and data, with the assurance that you too can get the same result. Well of course you’ll get the same result unless your computer is defective. It’s a program.
“ClimateWire tackles its subject from a multitude of angles, including domestic and international political, business, and scientific efforts to explain, mitigate, and adapt to global warming”
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/ee_news_launches_climatewire.php
“In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_American
Germans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_von_Holtzbrinck_Publishing_Group
Michael 2 says:
July 5, 2014 at 10:11 pm
““the die back of whitebark pines represents a severe threat to grizzly bear populations”
That is a somewhat more sensible comment. What do you propose to do about it?”
Is this a sensible comment? I will ask you both how many times over the millennia do you think that this or something like this has happened in the forests around the globe? And yet, they still exist,….
Rattus Norvegicus says:
July 4, 2014 at 12:52 pm
I’m a native Montanan (also mostly Norwegian for that matter). Left there for the last time about 33 years ago. I always tell people that you couldn’t ask for more beautiful country but the state is inhabited by Socialists. Rugged individualists, not. The fact that California libtards have bought up most of the state hasn’t improved things. I suspect RN’s belief system is probably typical, especially around Bozeman.
O/T Dr Steele and polar bears. He gave evidence at the inquest of the young Eton school boy who was mauled to death in Norway. Four others were injured. Seems the safety provisions and alert devices were faulty and held together by paper clips? The starving bear had been spotted in the area, so I reckon the tour organizers would have a lot to answer, don’t you? So polar bears get to Norway do they? Didn’t know that.