Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “the science is absolutely certain”
- Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- AI Climate Math
- AI Math
- Al Gore’s Arctic Forecast
- Mann Says He Was Correct
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “under the Intermediate Scenario”
- “carbon emissions may have now peaked”
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
- “4th Hottest Summer”
- Killing Joshua Trees To Save Them
- NASA Sea Level
- “getting smaller”
- “Permanent Shift” In Antarctic Sea Ice
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
Recent Comments
- Robertvd on AI Climate Math
- Gordon Vigurs on “the science is absolutely certain”
- Gordon Vigurs on “the science is absolutely certain”
- Gordon Vigurs on “the science is absolutely certain”
- Bob G on “the science is absolutely certain”
- Peter Carroll on “the science is absolutely certain”
- Bob G on Electricity Is Proportional To CO2
- Bob G on “the science is absolutely certain”
- William on “the science is absolutely certain”
- conrad ziefle on “the science is absolutely certain”
I’m done with the Guardian they’re freaking loony tunes!
The Guardian has been loony tunes for years.
They’re still not as bad as the Independent, though.
It’s dropping acorns that really have their attention.
Wow who would have thought a (possible) 0.6DegC of warming would have killed off all those dainty delicate trees.
Do people actually believe this $hit? seriously, do they really think fractions of degrees of warming or cooling would kill trees?
How do they suppose these trees survive from one season to the next when Ts change by tens of degrees?
It’s the age of stoooopid.
I guess that completely destroys the Hockey Stick Study, and all of dendro climatology for that matter. How can trees be thermometers if the just die when the temperature changes less than 1 degree?
lol! Good one.
Great photo. I guess it is supposed to look scary.
Did anyone tell these fools about the fires that swept through Yellowstone that killed those trees? Not because of The Warming. Because Smokey the Bear fire suppression built up a tinderbox that finally ignited back in the 1980s. The same thinking has created vast areas of mature and old forests on public lands in the west, which explains much of this alarmist story.
Guess nobody told them that post-fire habitats have more bear food either.
All I see is some good kindling for my campfire. And a bear that will steal my food.
No mention of the fungal disease known as white bark pine rust that has killed upwards of 90% of trees in some locales. Or how the suppression of the fire cycle has enabled pine beetles to increase. Or the fact Yellowstone sits over a caldera– and some areas see some wild fluctuations in soil chemistry and soil temperature. But the most interesting is West Yellowstone has a negative temperature trend over the last century. And these trees see an annual temperature range the exceeds 100F.
The data for this site goes back to 1905– picking the last three decades means they don’t have to deal with the higher temps from 4 to 10 decades ago.
http://www.robopeter.com/sv/?p=403
Someone is bound to say that geysers are caused by AGW.
Well they already say volcanic eruptions are caused by AGW, so geysers I suppose must be.
I’ve been hoping someone would ascribe NY’s exploding manhole covers to AGW but nobody has so far.
New York, New York…..
Hey, they blamed the earthquake in Haiti on CAGW.
What is it with those greenies – don’t they know that everything dies?
I’ve long had the suspicion that they proclaim to be ‘scientifically educated’ – but have actually never got their heads round the concept of evolution, nor of anything to do with palaeontology. Else they’d know that specimens die, species die and die out, which drives evolution.
I think we can now say that cAGW proponents are scientific numpties.
don’t they know that everything dies?
Apparently not. They think the only use for acorns are as sign of the sky falling.
Al Gored says:
February 7, 2011 at 7:41 am
Did anyone tell these fools about the fires that swept through Yellowstone that killed those trees?
__________________
Yeah, they look suspiciously like these
Click Here
and Click Here
And, oh yea, poor bear.
I’m surprised the greenies don’t swoop in and collect the dead trees (CO2 contributors) thereby stopping the natural decay/rebirth cycle and truly do some damage.
What a crock. As it turns out, Yellowstone had a problem with a pine beetle. Apparently a problem that has plagued the area since the 1930’s. Warmer weather kills less of the little buggers I guess. Although an alternative view is that less wild fires clean them out. All of a sudden though its a global hysteria issue instead of an insect issue. Go figure.
I can assure you, that down here in the United States Southeast the only place there isn’t a tree is where we have cut them down. There is plenty of forest for everyone, and it grows like a weed.
The very conditions that they blame on AGW (hot & humid with lots of CO2) would be a boon to trees.
I like the photo of the black bear among fallen trees in Yellowstone. I was there in 2006. Back in the 90’s, around there, there were massive forest fires. Everywhere you looked in 2006 we standing spines of dead trees. They’d better fall over or the concept of wood decaying will be shown false.
Anything to get the point across, even if it is lies, misrepresentation or misdirection. God will reward the well-intentioned, I guess, even if they are the Bernie Madoff types who tell us what they think we want to hear.
Stupid trees! We humans have supplied them with more than enough CO2, so now it’s up to them to aborb the stuff and get on with living & leafing.