how it started how it's going 
Sources:
washingtonpost.com/world/2018/11/…
forbes.com/sites/michaels…
washingtonpost.com/outlook/forest…
washingtonpost.com/climate-enviro…
washingtonpost.com/world/2018/11/…
forbes.com/sites/michaels…
washingtonpost.com/outlook/forest…
washingtonpost.com/climate-enviro…
ahem
It's amazing what one learns from interviewing actual forest scientists, who have been studying this for decades, as opposed to relying on activist climate scientists who have been modeling this in a lab for a few years
The garbage spewed last summer by camping-averse East Coast journalists was particularly appalling
They seemed to think that fires in forests were "bad" and that ancient trees burned up like kindling
They seemed to think that fires in forests were "bad" and that ancient trees burned up like kindling
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1337396120733982720?s=20
Great point. Ancient redwoods & sequoias survived two *megadroughts,* which were 200 & 140 years long, between 9th and 14th Centuries
For some reason @nytimes didn't see that information as relevant
For some reason @nytimes didn't see that information as relevant
https://twitter.com/VictorB123/status/1410763525010518019?s=20
"A historic drought from 2012 to 2016 and huge infestations of bark beetles killed millions of trees in the mixed-conifer forests leaving them behind as kindling" @JohnBranchNYT
4 years of drought was "historic"? By what measure? Not megadroughts!
nytimes.com/interactive/20…
4 years of drought was "historic"? By what measure? Not megadroughts!
nytimes.com/interactive/20…
This kind of claim is simply appalling
“They’ve lived through literally hundreds of fires in their lifetimes,” Dr. Shive said. “Now we’re seeing them killed in one fell swoop.”
That's simply not true of any of the forests described in the article.
“They’ve lived through literally hundreds of fires in their lifetimes,” Dr. Shive said. “Now we’re seeing them killed in one fell swoop.”
That's simply not true of any of the forests described in the article.
The headline is
"THEY’RE AMONG THE WORLD’S OLDEST LIVING THINGS. THE CLIMATE CRISIS IS KILLING THEM"
But two dozen paragraphs later the reporter admits, "there is not broad concern about any of the species going extinct"
"THEY’RE AMONG THE WORLD’S OLDEST LIVING THINGS. THE CLIMATE CRISIS IS KILLING THEM"
But two dozen paragraphs later the reporter admits, "there is not broad concern about any of the species going extinct"
So what exactly was being claimed?
Certainly nothing meriting the apocalyptic headline, and perhaps nothing at all.
As I noted earlier, the author provided zero evidence for three of the main claims in the article
Certainly nothing meriting the apocalyptic headline, and perhaps nothing at all.
As I noted earlier, the author provided zero evidence for three of the main claims in the article
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1337398705205362689
Redwood forests are anti-fragile
https://twitter.com/calfireczu/status/1410428850933166080
There are truly fragile things in the world but there are also anti-fragile ones, like human beings and redwood forests, which benefit from adversity.
Much of the apocalyptic climate discourse resembles the broader cultural impulse to see & treat anti-fragile things as fragile.
Much of the apocalyptic climate discourse resembles the broader cultural impulse to see & treat anti-fragile things as fragile.
Our adaptability is one of our signature characteristics as a species and yet much of the discourse on climate change infantilizes us. Against the whole of human history, alarmists insist we can’t adapt to warmer temperatures, sea level rise, and other environmental changes.
Alarmists do the same with other species without bothering to learn the first thing about the history and adaptation of those species. They do so in the name of science but the apocalyptic discourse is religious, creationist, and Biblical, not historical, scientific, or Darwinian
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
