This is all your fault
Extreme Weather May Be Displacing Animals, Too, a New Study Suggests
A new analysis published this week suggests that extreme weather linked to climate change might be much harder on native species than on nonnative ones.
“Suggests.” Totally scientific. Is it or is not happening from Bad Weather?
As the planet warms, extreme weather events — heat waves, cold snaps, droughts and floods — are becoming more common and destructive. The new paper, published on Monday in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution by a team from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, suggests that these sudden, violent changes in conditions could be helping to fundamentally reshape ecosystems.
Got that? Cold weather is also your fault for driving a fossil fueled vehicle releasing heat trapping gases.
In a statement, the team said that research on the impacts of extreme weather on ecosystems, while still in its early stages, was “critically important” to our ability to understand the effects of global warming on biodiversity.
On average, nonnative species tended to show more positive responses to extreme weather, or, at least, less negative ones. Where nonnative land species might take a hit in population numbers from a disaster, for example, the effects on native land species could sometimes be more far-reaching, with native populations also losing geographic distribution and struggling to recover.
All right, enough snark. These people are cultish idiots. Non-native species have always moved around, even to other continents. Sometimes by nature, sometimes because they were released (such as dingos in Australia). This is what happens on Earth. Life is not stagnant. Extreme weather has always happened and will always happen. CO2 is not the control knob, and a slight increase in global temperatures since 1850 is not Doom.
Meanwhile
Global Giving to Stop Climate Change Cools Even as Planet Faces Hottest-Ever Conditions
Philanthropic giving to address climate change was unchanged last year compared to 2021 at roughly US$7.8 billion to US$12.8 billion, a disappointing development in the face of rapidly intensifying climate impacts around the globe.
The figures, which represent less than 2% of all global giving by individuals and foundations, were released last week from the fourth annual funding trends analysis from the San Francisco-based ClimateWorks Foundation..
“A major acceleration of efforts is required to address climate change,” the report said. “Philanthropy has a significant role to play in driving that acceleration and supporting the implementation of recent commitments.”
I’m guessing the rich folks are getting tired of playing to the cult scammers (just like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos are moving to Miami, which I’m told will be under water soon from ‘climate change’), and, if a place like ClimateWorks is so concerned they can dump their own money into Doing Something, rather than demand that Other People do so. Seriously, why do they think they can tell people what to do with their money?
Mr Teach typed: “Suggests.” Totally scientific.
Yes, it is. No individual study “proves” a theory. Science is not regulated by the gubmint, so scientists are free to pursue what they wish. They see a study report associated with their field of study and “test” the study. Dozens of these studies may eventually lead to scientific consensus (but not proof). Each study “suggests” a finding. Any scientist claiming their study “proved” the case would be laughed at. Mr Teach knows this but continues his attacks on science!! Why? Because the results challenge his believed myths. Mr Teach is growing more desperate as his arguments evaporate like water on a hot sidewalk.
It’s a cult! It’s a communist plot for world domination! Gov’t commies are paying scientists for results!
Did any single study “prove” that cigarettes cause cancer? No. But the theory is accepted. Nobel Lunatic Rush Limbaugh argued that smoking didn’t cause cancer since most smokers do NOT develop cancer.
Studies show that some 84% of women and 90% of men with a new diagnosis of lung cancer either smoke or used to smoke. Is that proof or just strong evidence? In vitro and animal studies show that cigarette smoke releases dozens of carcinogens. Is that proof?
Scientist Rimjob, please explain why you lied about the therapeutic effects of avasopasem manganese on radiotherapy-driven severe oral mucositis.
No wonder you got out while gettin’ was good and left Mel holding the bag.
https://seekingalpha.com/news/4027155-galera-stock-plunges-risks-business-continuity
Elwood
Actually scientific theories must first be falsifiable, which is to say they must be able to be tested.
Secondly they must be predictable.
Manmade Global Warming as a theory can not be tested and every prediction made has been wrong.
And consensus is not science and proves nothing.
And all of the studies I have seen always are replete with qualifiers.
“Extreme Weather “May Be” Displacing Animals, Too, a New Study “Suggests”
An analysis by researchers in China found that weather disasters “might be” helping nonnative animals replace native species in the wild.”
The result? An article about a study that said study proves nothing yet some of our stupid people tremble and demand wild solutions that can, if we enact them can destroy western civilization.
You must be so proud.
Science has known since before 1900 that CO2 is warmed by infrared radiation. That is why Ronald Reagan warned us about global warming in the 1980s.
“Extreme weather may….” Except there’s no more extreme weather than there used to be.
Since 1980 both the frequency of hurricanes and the frequency of major hurricanes in the North Atlantic has increased.