You’re going for a nice hike out in the wilderness, to just enjoy, relax, become one with nature. Look at some wonderful scenery, enjoy all the wildlife and such. But, no, a doomsday cult has to nag you
Trump administration pulls climate change signs from Acadia National Park
The National Park Service recently removed numerous signs at Acadia National Park that detailed the mounting impacts of climate change on Maine’s coast and forests.
The move is part of a sweeping campaign that the Trump administration says is aimed at “restoring truth and sanity to American history.”
The now-removed Acadia signs, installed in 2023 at the summit of Cadillac Mountain and at the 100-acre Great Meadow wetland, informed visitors of the many ways Maine’s only official national park is changing and how park officials are working to better manage the ecosystem amid rising temperatures and extreme weather.
“Acadia is changing, so are we,” read one of the signs. “The rapidly changing climate requires new approaches to restoration.”
So, you made it to the top of the mountain, 1,530 high, and you get nagged by a cult.
In a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last week, Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) condemned the removal of national park signage as a blatant attempt to “whitewash history” and “limit the exchange and expression of factual information about climate science.”
“Our national parks are not billboards for propaganda,” she wrote. “They are places where millions of people come each year to learn, reflect, and confront both the beauty and the difficult truths of our shared history. Stripping away this context erodes the very mission of the Park Service and insults the public’s right to know.”
Has she given up her own use of fossil fuels? Can people just hike in peace without a side of cult nag?
Since the left can’t take back the White House before January 20, 2029, if we can keep this silliness out of our government and national parks until at least then, won’t we have blown by yet another tipping point, so we can just forget the whole thing?
… blown by yet another tipping point, so we can just forget the whole thing?
Being proven wrong never stops the Left from claiming they are right. It’s not about climate change. It’s about the money they loot from the federal treasury. Climate change is just the justification they put on the spending bills and no-bid contracts to their friends that never have to produce anything.
My wonderful wife — of 46 years, 4 months, and 13 days — just cooked us bacon and eggses on our fossil fueled range. There’s toast as well, though toasted using electricity, but I can take heart in the fact that the electricity was generated through the burning of fossil fuels.
Does burning uranium atoms in an atomic reaction count as fossil fuels?
No. Burning fossil fuels converts complex organic molecules into carbon dioxide and water, releasing energy. Coal yields ~0.024 megajoules/gram.
In a nuclear reactor, uranium-235 undergoes nuclear fission when bombarded by a neutron, splitting into two smaller nuclei (called fission products) like Barium and Krypton, releasing, you guessed it, energy! U-235 yields ~82,000 MJ/gram.
82000/.024 = 3.5 million. That’s how much more energy efficient uranium is than coal.
Every scientist on Earth understands that atmospheric CO2 (and other gases like methane, water) absorb infrared energy because their molecular structures allow them to vibrate and have a changing electric dipole moment, which matches the frequency of infrared radiation. This interaction causes the molecules to absorb the photon’s energy, increase their vibrational motion, and re-emit the infrared radiation in all directions (down, sideways, up!.
Most scientists understand that this phenomenon contributes to global warming. Without greenhouse gases the Earth would be very, very cold indeed!
Or like Donnie and Teach you can just say nuh uh!
Now do DDT.
Bwaha!
Dickbreath,
Here ya go.
DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) is a persistent insecticide that was widely used but banned in the U.S. in 1972 due to severe harm to wildlife and human health concerns, including cancer and neurotoxicity. While still used in some countries, especially for malaria control, it remains a potent environmental pollutant that contaminates animals and humans through breast milk and is a possible human carcinogen
Cite the peer reviewed study that says DDT is harmful when used as directed.
Go on, Rimjob.
No hurry.
You first, Dickbreath.
BTW Dickbreath, there are literally thousands of peer reviewed articles on the harm of DDT on humans and other animals species.
Go to pubmed* (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). Set the date from 1950 until today. Type in DDT. Hit Search. If you do that right you’ll receive 20,148 hits. Read at your leisure. No hurry. Most of the documents will be peer reviewed. Decide for yourself, Dickbreath. Do your own research.
________________
* Because of Donnie’s government shutdown “pubmed” is not updated daily.
Notice
Because of a lapse in government funding, the information on this website may not be up to date, transactions submitted via the website may not be processed, and the agency may not be able to respond to inquiries until appropriations are enacted. The NIH Clinical Center (the research hospital of NIH) is open. For more details about its operating status, please visit cc.nih.gov. Updates regarding government operating status and resumption of normal operations can be found at opm.gov.
Their source is “Silent Spring” written by the renowned “scientist”/crap-writer (is that hyphenated?) Rachel Carson. What more do you need then that?
SJ,
Please follow the directions supplied to Dickbreath regarding doing your own research on DDT.
There are literally thousands of research articles, none that reference Silent Spring.
Educate yourself!!
Most scientists also realize that the current atmospheric concentration of CO2 already absorbs over 99% of the frequency of radiation that it encounters that it can absorb. In other words, we reached saturation.
More CO2 won’t add appreciably to the greenhouse effect. It already does as much as it can. Adding more won’t increase the warming.
That is not true. Do a search for “CO2 absorption IR saturation” and report what you find.
The photons of IR radiation is not retained by a CO2 molecule. It is absorbed and then released rapidly (nanoseconds) as IR radiation where it can interact with another molecule of CO2.
+++Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as CO2 molecules, absorb some of this IR radiation, then re-emit it in all directions – including back to Earth’s surface. The CO2 molecule does not fill up with IR photons, running out of space for any more. Instead, the CO2 molecule absorbs the energy from the IR photon and the photon ceases to be. The CO2 molecule now contains more energy, but that is transient since the molecule emits its own IR photons. Not only that: it’s constantly colliding with other molecules such as N2 and O2 in the surrounding air. In those collisions, that excess energy is shared with them.+++
Rimjob, you basically repeated what ruralcounsel typed.
Are you really this dense?
Dickbreath continues to be Teach’s Liar-in-Teach. Mein gott, you’re an idiot.
Elwood’s somewhat incoherent explanation happens to violate the conservation of energy. If CO2 absorbs all the energy available at the absorption frequency that CO2 bonds can absorb, no additional energy can be absorbed and so no additional heating can occur, no matter how it is distributed among the rest of the atmospheric molecules.
Otherwise, you discovered a mechanism for generating more energy than you introduce. Elwood’s version of a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.
rural should re-read the explanation until they understand.
The thermodynamic laws are not violated. Surely they are not claiming that the Earth is not warming.
Elwood says that more heating can occur even after all the absorbable radiative energy has already been absorbed. That’s what would be required if the current CO2 levels absorb all the energy at the absorbable wavelengths, that is what is meant by saturated. And that is a violation of the physics law of conservation of energy.
The sun continues to add energy to the earth, so it may be possible that the earth is still warming (though most of the warming happened decades ago). Elwood thinks creating strawman arguments will distract from his idiotic theory.
If that isn’t his theory, perhaps he ought to learn how to explain it more coherently, rather than just throw shade.
Careful rereading of Elwood’s “theory” makes me realize that all he is describing is energy transfer between atmospheric molecules, which is part of the normal greenhouse gas warming process. It can in NO WAY create more heating than the amount of radiative energy already being supplied by the sun. It merely describes how the absorbed energy is redistributed. Nothing wrong, but just that it doesn’t describe or account for more heating from greenhouse gases. That is why his explanation for more heating violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Adding more CO2 molecules can’t add more to the greenhouse effect if all of the radiative energy in that wavelength is already being absorbed. So unless the sun starts emitting more radiation at those absorbable wavelengths, no additional heating can occur.
Elwood seems incapable of grasping the concept of saturation.
“Our national parks are not billboards for propaganda,”
Then she should have no problem removing the signage that was there.