What would a hot July day be without some global warming hysteria from USA Today?
Today, America’s newspaper attempts to paint a nightmare scenario in that natural gem, Yellowstone National Park.
“Increasing waves of severe fires fed by climate change could shift much of the iconic forests of Yellowstone to scrub or grasslands by the end of this century, scientists say.”
Oh heavens no! Hopefully, the melting polar ice caps will move the Pacific Coast close enough to Yellowstone by then that the sea mist will prevent such a calamity.
USA Today’s article is laughable. The myth of global warming has been blown out of the water. Yet, they found some scientists who still toe the line, saying that global warming will destroy our nation’s favorite park.
Well, of course they say this. Because now, having said this, the government will hand them a Hefty 3-ply garbage bag full of money to continue studying the situation in the hopes that it will result in a recommendation for greater government control over what we drive and what light bulbs we buy.
“They ran various climate projections through computer models and got three scenarios — mild, medium and severe — of how increasing warming could impact the area's fire patterns.
OK, this might be a good time to remind everyone that to date, the number of climate change computer models that have actually proven out is the exact same number of plywood interstellar space craft I’ve launched. That would be ZERO. None of these ridiculous, garbage-in models have ever predicted anything that’s actually happened.
Ever.
Today, America’s newspaper attempts to paint a nightmare scenario in that natural gem, Yellowstone National Park.
“Increasing waves of severe fires fed by climate change could shift much of the iconic forests of Yellowstone to scrub or grasslands by the end of this century, scientists say.”
Oh heavens no! Hopefully, the melting polar ice caps will move the Pacific Coast close enough to Yellowstone by then that the sea mist will prevent such a calamity.
USA Today’s article is laughable. The myth of global warming has been blown out of the water. Yet, they found some scientists who still toe the line, saying that global warming will destroy our nation’s favorite park.
Well, of course they say this. Because now, having said this, the government will hand them a Hefty 3-ply garbage bag full of money to continue studying the situation in the hopes that it will result in a recommendation for greater government control over what we drive and what light bulbs we buy.
“They ran various climate projections through computer models and got three scenarios — mild, medium and severe — of how increasing warming could impact the area's fire patterns.
OK, this might be a good time to remind everyone that to date, the number of climate change computer models that have actually proven out is the exact same number of plywood interstellar space craft I’ve launched. That would be ZERO. None of these ridiculous, garbage-in models have ever predicted anything that’s actually happened.
Ever.
None.
Not one.
EVER.
The story continues…
"Frankly, the results really surprised us," says Monica Turner, a professor of landscape ecology at the University of Wisconsin Madison and one of the authors of the paper. The researchers found ‘more fire and a more rapid rate of change than any of us had anticipated.’"
Oh puh-leeze! Yeah, the results of this garbage-in model surprised you. “Hey, let’s construct a model based on the myth of global warming that says the earth is going to get REALLY hot and way drier. Now let’s say that this heat and drought happens over a widely forested region that’s prone to lightning. Now lets say it resides inside the world’s largest caldera. Let’s see what the computer spits out here… (DING!) Fires?!? FIRES?!? UNBELIEVABLE!!!”
Hey next, let’s build a model based on an average temperature of 124 degrees Fahrenheit at the North Pole. (DING!) What?!? The ice melts?!? Holy crap! I didn’t see THAT coming!
“…cooler, wetter times seem to be going away, says paper co-author Anthony Leroy Westerling, who studies climate and wildfire interactions at the University of California-Merced.”
And if he didn’t say this, how much money do you think he’d get to continue studying “climate change?” Anthony Leroy Westerling has a vested financial interest in imagining cataclysmic climactic scenarios. If he came out and said, “You know, everything seems really pretty stable and relatively cyclical based on solar activity,” he’d have to get a real job. Aside from studying climate and wildfire interactions, I mean. He’s probably the guy who came up with the Nobel-prize winning equation:
Ignition Source + Dry Vegetation = Fire
Not to mention its wildly controversial sister equation:
Wet Vegetation + Ignition Source = No Fire
“Some climate change calculations for the greater Yellowstone area predict temperatures 8.1 to 9.9 degrees higher in the spring and summer by 2099.”
Let’s step into the Way Back machine. Hmm. Some climate change calculations said that Florida would be under water by 2010. Some climate change calculations said the polar ice caps would be virtually gone by now. Some climate change calculations said the oceans would be devoid of seafood by now. Some climate change calculations said that New York, LA, Boston and Philadelphia would be relegated to the murky depths of the greater Atlantis area.
None of these ridiculous, garbage-in models have ever predicted anything that’s actually happened. Ever.
None.
"Frankly, the results really surprised us," says Monica Turner, a professor of landscape ecology at the University of Wisconsin Madison and one of the authors of the paper. The researchers found ‘more fire and a more rapid rate of change than any of us had anticipated.’"
Oh puh-leeze! Yeah, the results of this garbage-in model surprised you. “Hey, let’s construct a model based on the myth of global warming that says the earth is going to get REALLY hot and way drier. Now let’s say that this heat and drought happens over a widely forested region that’s prone to lightning. Now lets say it resides inside the world’s largest caldera. Let’s see what the computer spits out here… (DING!) Fires?!? FIRES?!? UNBELIEVABLE!!!”
Hey next, let’s build a model based on an average temperature of 124 degrees Fahrenheit at the North Pole. (DING!) What?!? The ice melts?!? Holy crap! I didn’t see THAT coming!
“…cooler, wetter times seem to be going away, says paper co-author Anthony Leroy Westerling, who studies climate and wildfire interactions at the University of California-Merced.”
And if he didn’t say this, how much money do you think he’d get to continue studying “climate change?” Anthony Leroy Westerling has a vested financial interest in imagining cataclysmic climactic scenarios. If he came out and said, “You know, everything seems really pretty stable and relatively cyclical based on solar activity,” he’d have to get a real job. Aside from studying climate and wildfire interactions, I mean. He’s probably the guy who came up with the Nobel-prize winning equation:
Ignition Source + Dry Vegetation = Fire
Not to mention its wildly controversial sister equation:
Wet Vegetation + Ignition Source = No Fire
“Some climate change calculations for the greater Yellowstone area predict temperatures 8.1 to 9.9 degrees higher in the spring and summer by 2099.”
Let’s step into the Way Back machine. Hmm. Some climate change calculations said that Florida would be under water by 2010. Some climate change calculations said the polar ice caps would be virtually gone by now. Some climate change calculations said the oceans would be devoid of seafood by now. Some climate change calculations said that New York, LA, Boston and Philadelphia would be relegated to the murky depths of the greater Atlantis area.
None of these ridiculous, garbage-in models have ever predicted anything that’s actually happened. Ever.
None.
Not one.
EVER.
"’Yellowstone is fairly close to the tipping point,’ Westerling says. ‘There's no analog for this within the past 10,000 years.’"
There’s no analog within the past 10,000 years for anything as laughably ridiculous as your borderline-insane prediction of 8.1 to 9.9 degrees of warming. Because prior to the rise of the ecomarxists, you’d have been drubbed out of the scientific community for malpractice. You’d have been roundly ridiculed for being a complete joke. But today, you’re pulling a university salary.
And you wonder why more and more young men choose not to go to college. This could be one reason.
“In 1988, Yellowstone experienced one of its most devastating fire seasons, a hot, dry year in which 36% of the park burned.”
Yeah, you know why? Because the government decided not to fight the fire and let the park go through a NATURAL PROCESS OF CATCHING FIRE EVERY ONCE IN AWHILE. I guess USA Today assumes no one remembers that particular controversy.
“By 2075, all three models begin to falter, simply because so much of the forest would have been recently burned.”
Well, all of these panicky models falter because their parameters are established by unscientific opportunists who profit from panic, either financially or politically. That is abundantly clear by now.
After the humiliation of Climategate, the revelation that NOAA pulled temperature monitoring stations out of cooler climates and the resignation of Harold Lewis from the American Physical Society (calling global warming, “the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life”), you’d think that these exposed scoundrels would shut up, pack up and go away. But no. They just keep going. They seem to be clinging desperately to the philosophy that “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
They’ve built an entire industry on the mad rantings of Joseph Goebbels.
But hey, it seems to be working for them. We won’t be allowed to buy 100 watt bulbs come January 1. Good thing, too. Those babies get hot enough to burn down Yellowstone.
No comments:
Post a Comment