Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Will Make Walks In The Woods Much Rarer Or Something

Can most urban dwelling members of the Cult of Climastrology even find the great outdoors? Other than to take a quick selfie for social media than escape back to a Starbucks, of course

Climate change will make a walk in the woods a much rarer pleasure

If you like to take a walk in the woods in the United States or you prefer to decorate a Douglas fir at Christmas, you should know that climate change is making both of those activities a lot harder.

Looking at two ecologically and economically important species — the Douglas fir and the Ponderosa pine — scientists found that fires and drought exacerbated by climate change make new growth difficult, especially in low-elevation forests, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Some forests in four regions in California, Colorado, the Northern Rockies and the southwestern part of the United States have crossed “a critical climate threshold for postfire tree generation,” the study says.

Climate conditions over the past 20 years have accelerated changes that would have otherwise taken decades or even centuries to play out across broad regions of the country. This is leading to the abrupt decline of trees and making these lands increasingly unsuitable for tree regeneration.

Climate change is endangering our forests now, not just in some distant future.

First, this is simply doomsaying. Second, this doesn’t provide proof that it is mostly solely caused by Mankind. Third, for most of the last twenty years the global temperature was in a pause. Yes, it was elevated, but, that’s what happens during a Holocene warm period.

Adult trees have better survival mechanisms to deal with poor climate conditions, but intense wildfires are wiping out these Ponderosa pines and Douglas firs. The trees have thick bark that make them typically good at surviving surface level fires, but they can’t survive the more intense fires that move through the canopy, like this region has seen. Had there not been such intense fires, these trees may have lived for centuries.

So, wildfires never happened prior to fossil fuels? And, let’s not forget, that many of these fires were actually caused by humans, but not from ‘climate change’.

Anyhow, no more long walks in the woods for you. Instead, please get into a prostrate position and hand your wallet to the Government.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

27 Responses to “Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Will Make Walks In The Woods Much Rarer Or Something”

  1. Bill Bear says:

    “for most of the last twenty years the global temperature was in a pause.”

    False. The heat content of the planet has been steadily increasing since 1998. See, for instance Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

    https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf

    https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

    “So, wildfires never happened prior to fossil fuels?”

    Of course, the article says no such thing. Twisting the words to suit a predetermined viewpoint is a classic denialist tactic.

    “please get into a prostrate position and hand your wallet to the Government.”

    Porter Good again reveals that his climate denialism is based not on fact, but on an extremist ideology.

    • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

      So little jeffery keene of st. louis has new annoying nic.
      Same old stupid though. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • Professor Hale says:

        People who behave badly change their names often. This is a common practice. Oddly, they don’t change their behavior.

    • Jl says:

      True. As the IPCC acknowledged and mentioned in their reports. https://twitter.com/sci_or_fic/status/1025121136500203521?s=21

    • Kye says:

      Denying, or doubting an unproven THEORY is not an “extreme ideology”, but believing it is FACT based on faith not science is extreme ideology therefore it has become a political cult. You will never understand why people don’t believe you until you take the politics out of your presentation. Showering people with proven failed political solutions is not winning. Neither does showering them with insults.

    • formwiz says:

      False. We know the books were cooked, the data skewed.

      Twisting the words to suit a predetermined viewpoint is a classic denialist tactic.

      Twisting the words to suit a predetermined viewpoint is a classic Lefty tactic.

      FIFY

      Porter Good again reveals that his climate denialism is based not on fact, but on an extremist ideology.

      Yes, it’s called Communism and debunking global nonsense is a necessary part of fighting it.

      • Bill Bear says:

        And… formwiz reveals that he, too, is a denier not because of facts, but because he adheres to an extremist ideology.

        Good to know.

  2. Dana says:

    ‘Twould seem to me that the warmunists’ solutions to global warming climate change would be what would make taking that walk in the woods more difficult. They want to increase the price of gasoline, meaning that you will have less disposable income to afford that trip out to the woods. They want to reduce the number of automobiles by pushing people onto mass transit, leaving people with fewer ways to get out into the forest. They want to pack people more densely into urban areas, taking them further away from the woods.

    As for me? The forest is right across the street!

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      The reason market approaches are desired as that it allows freedom of choice.

      When a society decides that an item or act is harmful the society has choices on how to limit the harm.

      We can ban them, as we do for most violent crimes and for possession of many illicit drugs.

      Cigarettes lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans each year, 10s of thousands of non-smokers!!, but we grandfathered them in rather than ban them, and taxed the bejesus out of them. Should we have just left cigarettes alone and let nature take its course killing 500,000 Americans each year and costing us $300 billion/year? An important point is that smokers in Tennessee are not harming Californians (except with the higher taxes/insurance premiums we all pay to treat smokers illnesses).

      But CO2 emission in Texas do harm people in NJ. As do CO2 emission in Shanghai and Mumbai and Mexico City and Tokyo and Moscow. That’s why global warming requires a global approach but handled on a nation by nation basis. It’s unfair for Maine to sacrifice but West Virginia not, just as it’s unfair for the US to sacrifice but China and India not.

      We could ban fossil fuels, but we all know that would never work, and that’s why carbon taxes have been proposed. Yes, they are intended to modify behavior – to use less fossil fuel – just as cigarette taxes are to discourage smoking (US cigarette smoking has dropped from 20% to 14% in the past 10 years).

      • formwiz says:

        The reason market approaches are desired as that it allows freedom of choice.

        When a society decides that an item or act is harmful the society has choices on how to limit the harm.

        We can ban them, as we do for most violent crimes and for possession of many illicit drugs.

        Funny how Harvey wants government-controlled medical care, where there’s no choice.

        Should we have just left cigarettes alone and let nature take its course killing 500,000 Americans each year and costing us $300 billion/year? An important point is that smokers in Tennessee are not harming Californians (except with the higher taxes/insurance premiums we all pay to treat smokers illnesses).

        Why not and, no, smokers in TN raise everybody’s health costs (she doesn’t know economics, either).

        But CO2 emission in Texas do harm people in NJ. As do CO2 emission in Shanghai and Mumbai and Mexico City and Tokyo and Moscow. That’s why global warming requires a global approach but handled on a nation by nation basis. It’s unfair for Maine to sacrifice but West Virginia not, just as it’s unfair for the US to sacrifice but China and India not.

        No, because CO2 is a heavy gas and falls to earth, rather than remain in the atmosphere.

        We could ban fossil fuels, but we all know that would never work, and that’s why carbon taxes have been proposed. Yes, they are intended to modify behavior – to use less fossil fuel – just as cigarette taxes are to discourage smoking (US cigarette smoking has dropped from 20% to 14% in the past 10 years).

        Which means people will have no choice, but will be unable to move around and be stuck in one place.

        See how Communism works?

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          Gotta love the conflation of tobacco products to fossil fuels.
          More dumbassery from a nignorant little fella. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • Dana says:

        Except, of course, that gasoline usage is somewhat inelastic: people still need their wheels to get to work, to go to the grocery store, really for all of the necessities of life. Increasing taxes on fuel has a greater impact on those things for which demand is more elastic, as people have less money to spend on optional things.

        Of course, the elites don’t care; they have plenty of money, and aren’t worried about putting food on the table. It’s the working class who care, because they know that leftist policies hurt them.

  3. Professor Hale says:

    In most of the civilized world, trees are a crop, like corn. We can grow more anywhere we choose.

  4. Bill Bear says:

    formwiz wrote:

    “CO2 is a heavy gas and falls to earth, rather than remain in the atmosphere.”

    False.

    We know that CO2 is found in the atmosphere at higher altitudes.

    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    https://www.nature.com/articles/2211040a0

    https://www.nature.com/articles/288347a0

    Inventing and repeating a known falsehood is, of course, a typical denier tactic.

    JGB

    • david7134 says:

      Jeff,
      You keep saying “what would convince you”. Do the experiment. Otherwise, you have nothing but references to lies.

      • Bill Bear says:

        david7134 wrote:

        “You keep saying “what would convince you”.”

        False. I have never asked that question. I am well aware that facts will not convince deniers, whose denial is not based upon facts to begin with.

        • formwiz says:

          You ask it all the time, in your bunny suit.

          I am well aware that facts will not convince deniers, whose denial is not based upon facts to begin with.

          Now that’s projection.

          If you’re so ashamed of lying, why won’t you stop?

          • Bill Bear says:

            “You ask it all the time, in your bunny suit.”

            formwiz is lying again. This is a common tactic of climate deniers.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        david,

        It is I that asks you “what would convince you?”. If you can’t answer that question it strongly suggests that you don’t want to discuss the science, data and evidence of global warming.

        Mr. Bear and I have differing approaches to prove you’re not interested in facts.

        You and yours are always surprised when people telling the truth sound alike. But a truth has few variables while lies can take so many forms. You and SA, for example, consider global warming a hoax but in different ways!

        • formwiz says:

          If you can’t answer that question it strongly suggests that you don’t want to discuss the science, data and evidence of global warming.

          Why discuss what we know is a lie? He’s called your bluff and you try to change the subject.

          Mr. Bear and I have differing approaches to prove you’re not interested in facts.

          Actually, you’re mind-numbingly identical.

          You and yours are always surprised when people telling the truth sound alike. But a truth has few variables while lies can take so many forms.

          No, it just means your trollmasters can only trust you people with 1 set of talking points.

    • formwiz says:

      How do you think we get photosynthesis, idiot?

  5. formwiz says:

    formwiz is lying again. This is a common tactic of climate deniers.

    Sure, you can’t even step out of your psychosis to even try to sound different.

Bad Behavior has blocked 4743 access attempts in the last 7 days.