Poison Oak and Global Warming

[IH3444]

I'm still trying to figure out how the other planets in our solar system are warming up, along with the earth.

 

[jinman]

I'm still trying to figure out how the other planets in our solar system are warming up, along with the earth.

When I was a kid, almost nobody had air conditioners in their cars. Now, everybody says they gotta have 'em. That's indisputable evidence to me. It must be gettin' hotter.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

When I was a kid, almost nobody had air conditioners in their cars. Now, everybody says they gotta have 'em. That's indisputable evidence to me. It must be gettin' hotter.

As I recall, back then we only had trucks and tractors. It was the onset of cars that beset us with wussiness.

 

[billbill1]

Jim, when I was a kid there were very few cars that had air conditioning. More of the wealthy types had it. Mid to late sixties was when it really started getting popular and more and more people had it in their cars. I bought a new car in 1981 without air, never again!! I think I'm getting wiser with age. Sure feels better in the house with it too.

 

[IH3444]

The problem actually is global humidity, not warming....

 

[N80]

The problem actually is global humidity, not warming....

Agreed. It is 120 in Tuscon, but that's a dry heat and feels like 65. It is 101 here and feels like 190.

I would like to comment on the MSN article but I'm up to my eyebrows in patients right now.....so I'll be back to bore you later.

Hazmat, I think we can keep this a-political, but again, shut it down if needed.

 

[hazmat]

...
Hazmat, I think we can keep this a-political, but again, shut it down if needed.

So far, so good.

 

[Spiveyman]

The problem actually is global humidity, not warming....

HA!!! I about busted a gut on that one. I don't know where you're from, but that's the line here in KY. "It's not the heat, it's the humidity."

Two things: Weather. It changes. Just ask a weather man. Last year we had the wetest year on record, this year one of the dryest. Which one do you blame on glabal "increased-humidity?"

The other thing, I couldn't agree more about the general public and their willingness to follow the media. Remember the year of the shark attack? and the pictures of hundreds of hammerhead sharks schooling together? You would have thought the sharks formed a union intent on wiping out all ocean going humans. A couple of stories on the news and it was a Jaws-fest. In fact, that year shark bites were no more than other years. So when did American's stop being rugged individuals and start being mindless lemmings? As Earl Pits would call it, the wussification of America!

I say go buy a tractor, burn some diesel fuel, and enjoy the bumper crops!!!

 

[dmccarty]

My point is that the American public is as gullible and suggestable as any marketing department could want them to be. Put it on the radio, the TV or the internet and they'll buy.

I agree and disagree. My disagree is with the word, "American." I think humanity has this problem. Not just us in the US.

Marketing/Propaganda works. That is why companies spend billions of shekels to get people to buy one sugary, carbonated, acid water over another sugary, carbonated, acid water. Or wine. Or beer. And for goodness sakes WATER!

My dad got a bad case of Poison Oak/Ivey all over his hands, arms and face a few weeks ago when he helped clean up four trees I had cut up/down. I guess it was CO2 that caused it. Or maybe it was the fact that he kept refusing to wear gloves and kept wiping the sweat from his forehead. Nah had to be the CO2.

Later,
Dan

 

[N80]

Okay, let's go to the MSN article. First, let's look at the headline of the article which was released by the Associated Press:

"Another global warming gift: itchier poison ivy"

I suspect that this is as far as most people got, or at least that is all they heard of the 27 news segment recited by some talking head. Now look at the article about what was actually done. Duke started with an assumption that poison ivy will grow more vigorously in a high carbon dioxide environment. (I'll mention it later but doesn't that put Duke in line for the 2007 DUH! awards?) To test that assumption against a point that they apparently felt would be environmentally relevant they grew the plants in an environment artificially set up to duplicate what they project will be the CO2 levels in 2050. When they did so, the ivy got real big and real poisonous.

Now I don't expect the typical Westerner (I'll defer from using the term American) to be a scientist, a biologist, a philosopher or a statistician. I would expect that anyone who had read or heard about this study to realize that nowhere, at any point did it ever suggest that we have more, bigger or nastier poison ivy now or at any other time for any other reason.

But no, these typical Americans have to inform me that their poison ivy is bad because of global warming and they clearly believed what they were saying. It was a fact. No, it was more than that, it was a scientific fact!. Therefore, they could no longer be reasoned with. Who in their right mind would dispute scientific fact.

Now let's take it a step further, because I know you guys aren't like the average maroon on the street and might appreciate a few observations.

And for the sake of TBN peace and harmony we will assume that global warming is real and that CO2 levels will increase. If you don't believe these things (and belive me, I understand) then the whole thing becomes all the more incredulous.

First is the assumption that CO2 will fuel growth in poison ivy. Duh. Plants (the vast majority) use CO2 as their primary source of carbon which is their primary element for growth and food production via photosynthesis. So it is hardly a leap of the imagination to assume more CO2 = bigger plants. But, poison ivy seems to be more sensitive to this than other woody plants. But that is not a mystery, Duke already knew that and said so.

So why did they choose poison ivy to study and report on? They clearly studied other plants in this six year(!) experiment. (Wonder how much that cost and how much tax money funded it!?!) Why all the fuss about poison ivy? I'll let you decide that why. But I sure would have liked to know the effect on wheat, corn, pines, fruit trees etc. How about you?

Second, how did they decide on a CO2 level to test? They decided to test what they would be like in 2050. Fine, what's wrong with that? Well, I'd like to hear what Duke had to say about projecting last year's hurricane season. I feel sure that they would have agreed with the NWS that it was going to be terrible. Of course it was one of the mildest on record. Ask Duke if they can tell you if it will rain at your house tomorrow! Yet, they presume to know, to even have a guess, what it is going to be like in 50 years! Seriously folks, that is scientifically unacceptable. And why would Duke and Harvard make scientific judgments on such clearly and horribly designed studies? Again, I'll let you answer that for yourself. But I will say, without a shadow of a doubt that it has nothing to do with the furtherance of either pure or applied science.

So what is their conclusion of this six year(!) study? Well here it is:

“The fertilization effect of rising CO2 on poison ivy ... and the shift toward a more allergenic form of urushiol have important implications for the future health of both humans and forests.”

What rising CO2????? It may be rising but they did not test that. They tested against one projected level! What "important" implications? Important? What do they mean by important? Important like heart disease? Lung cancer? Three feet of water in downtown New York in 2 years? Give me a break.

If you ever needed an example to point out the purely idealogical aim of many 'scientific' studies and the media hype surrounding them, then here is it. There was a point to the design, execution and reporting of this study and it had nothing to do with the future implications of poison ivy growth. It is an intent to change minds and secure followers. The facts speak for themselves and deciet it the only rational explanation. If you stongly belive in globa warming, this type of science is the most damaging evidence against your belief. If global warming is your idealogy or political rallying point, this type of 'science' and 'journalism' is an effective tool in your conquest.

For everyone else: Do not be decieved. Do not be a passive vessel of propaganda. Recognize the difference between fact and truth!