Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Dangerous Ideas

Global Warming Forces Major Change in Behavior of a Common Animal.

Advertisement

Normally I don't get alarmist about climate change, but this is a real serious though unintended consequence of climate change that we all need to be aware of.

Climate change pushes Groundhog Day to January

The town of Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania has announced that it is pushing Groundhog Day forward eight days to January 25, in recognition of the impact climate change has had in western Pennsylvania. The change is based on analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), whose scientists have determined that spring has come an average of eight days earlier to the region since 1997.

Check it out!

http://action.ucsusa.org/site/Ecard?ecard_id=1761&autologin=true

Comments

OldEnuf2BYurDad 3 years ago

Oooookay. I read the link.

Good one.

0

OldEnuf2BYurDad 3 years ago

"since 1997."

Big woop-de-do. Fourteen years of warm weather is not "climate change".

I bet if they go back far enough, they'll find another 14 year period just like it in the records. I'm guessing sometime around the dustbowl years.

0

Centerville 3 years ago

Hilarious story but, just a year ago, I wouldn't have immediately thought "I'll bet it's The Onion". I would have thought "Oh no, another lemming government takes the bait." Things are looking up!

0

Paul Decelles 3 years ago

Devo,

Well I was using science to include applied science. I don't think science magically becomes non science because it is applied. That said, I do agree that corporations tend to fund less basic science than they used to-I am thinking here of Bell Labs as an example. I wonder if there are numbers that could shed light on this.

Cheers!

0

devobrun 3 years ago

Corporations have dramatically reduced research funding. What research is done at a corporation is very specific and not general or "science", in the sense of fundamental learning. It is all applied with a clear cost, or revenue goal.

My father worked for Phillips Petroleum from 1947 until 1984. I used to go with him to the research center there in Bartlesville sometimes to see what he was working on. In 1961 we went in after hours and he turned on a radio transmitter that was attached to a coil wound around a glass tube. From each end came a beam of light. It was a laser. One of the first ever. A physicist had my father make it....just to see what it was.

Corporations don't do that anymore. The research center in Bartlesville is overgrown with weeds and the few buildings that are occupied contain siding companies and warehouses for furniture.

Corporate science is not driving science. The government-university complex is. With a few shekels thrown in by AARP, WWF, Sierra Club, American Heart Association, etc.

Compared to Jerry's kids, American Lung Association, and a zillion government agencies and non-profits, corporation research is a spit in the river.

0

Paul Decelles 3 years ago

Devo,

Oh I agree we should be skeptical, but my impression is that the skepticism people have is not even handed but applied to those results that do not fit with their own ideologies. You corrrectly point out some flaws in the current system. I wonder how we correct these problems.

I notice you don't include corporations as a special interest group. Is that just an over sight?

0

devobrun 3 years ago

No and no.

Journalists, politicians, scientists and the regular guy on the street should be made aware that when scientists engage in politics, politicians are given access to science.

Today most science is funded by government or from a special interest group, like WWF. The research/government connection is so strong that all scientists are political, or work for a political organization.

That is, research at the university is usually begun by a principal investigator whose main job is getting money into the project and producing scientific papers. How often does a PI produce results that are counter to the funding agency? Are there pressures on that PI to be political in the presentation of results? How often are congresspeople involved in acquisition of funding for major research institutions? It is a big business, this science business.

All these things potentially corrupt science. Money, power, all the usual stuff. But today, science is big science and the pressure to be not quite truthful is greater than ever.

It also is much easier to fudge data. It is also much easier to obfuscate data, algorithms, and results. All of us should be far more skeptical than we are.

0

Paul Decelles 3 years ago

Devo,

So scientists should stay out of politics? Groups of scientists can't organize to promote what they see as the political implications of science?

0

devobrun 3 years ago

So I read the UCS link and found the usual complaints about "deniers". "Scientists" are fighting back though:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n1/full/nclimate1080.html#/f1

Or one could read all this and just sigh at the demise of science and the rise of politics, propaganda and agendas that are anything but scientific.

0

riverdrifter 3 years ago

Oh, crap. should've known, but what I said is true.

At least Google didn't fool me this year. YouTube's was the funniest.

0

BigPrune 3 years ago

Does the link have conspiratorial emails attached? At least those wackos have a sense of humor. Happy April Fools Day!

0

riverdrifter 3 years ago

I don't blame them a bit for moving things up even though I didn't see the first whistle pig of the spring until March 19 when I went to visit the trail camera. We used to decorate graves on Memorial Day with peonies and lilic blooms when I was a kid. Nowdays those have both bloomed and are long gone by then. Time changes things.

0

booyalab 3 years ago

I didn't fall for it because everyone knows that groundhogs are in the pockets of big business and would never let a story like this come to light. Those cute button noses mask an evil appetite for corporate kickbacks.

0

SandCoAlmanac 3 years ago

Cool! Welcome back, Paul! Good to see your posts again!

0

notaubermime 3 years ago

Golf clap to Paul. The premise has enough truth to get me.

How many of the rest you actually clicked the link?

0

Flap Doodle 3 years ago

There's no paper over here. Could somebody pass me a carbon credit?

0

Olympics 3 years ago

‎1) 97-98% of 1372 climate researchers support anthropogenic climate change (ACC). 2) The relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

0

Liberty275 3 years ago

I take it you mean the major behavioral change is the growing predilection for knee-jerk behavior in reaction to pseudo-science the common human primate is showing of late.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years ago

Those bastards! Is there no freedom left in this country?! ;)

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.