catastrophism Omniclimate

Amazing First on The New York Times

Something absolutely unheard-of before: an entire New York Times article talking about Global Warming but… with no hint of impending doom or catastrophes:

In a Warmer Yellowstone Park, a Shifting Environmental Balance by Jim Robbins – published: March 18, 2008

0 replies on “Amazing First on The New York Times”

The Yellowstone story starts with global warming, which causes a drought in this valley, among other changes. The link is global to local, not the other way around. And of course, that’s as we’d expect.

We see these issues all around the world. Robins have begun nesting here in Texas, a function of their normal nesting areas being snowbound due to increased snows due to warming putting more vapor in the atmosphere. Russian thistle — tumbleweeds — expand their range, sucking water from local crops and local species. Birds die out because their food source, some odd insect, keeps pace with local plant life, and hatches now weeks before the bird arrives from its winter home to breed. When the baby birds hatch, there’s nothing for them to eat.

All local effects from global warming. You call it a “logical jump.” Botanists, entomologists, ornithologists, herpetologists and zoologists call it disaster.

On the other hand one could assume species ebb and flow, some gaining, some losing from whatever changes happen around them. Not to mention the fact that the environment is changed by the species as the species by the environment. How wise can be the idea of transforming Earth into a controlled, no-change-allowed cage?

Plus, of course, it says something — I’ll leave it up to you to decide what — when an article talks about cataclysm to local populations, but the skeptics look at it and say “Look! No doom!”

Extinction is such an expected thing these days it’s no longer news? Or it’s no longer worth note?

Ya know, when the article notes that it’s a climate change-related drought that causes the thistles to expand, and when it goes on about the thistle’s being an exotic, the question becomes, how can one cite the article and miss what it says? There wouldn’t be a need to argue about the effects if the “skeptics” would read the stuff.

I envy you Ed. Any change, wherever it happens and whatever it is, you see it as evidence for global warming. Who needs to argue when the arguments flow in by themselves?

No doom unless you’re a vole or a long-tailed weasel, or a bison, or an elk. No doom absolutely evident, except that the ecosystem is undergoing extremely rapid change, due to warming.

Those stupid thistles! They refuse to read the denials of global warming you put out!

That’s an interesting take, JC. Are you suggesting newspapers run after made-up catastrophes whilst neglecting the most likely ones?

Leave a Reply to omnologos Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.