Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Poison Ivy

One of my favorite plants is poison ivy. It is a native plant that is not invasive. And now a new study has shown that rising levels of carbon dioxide, a so-called greenhouse gas, can fuel booming poison ivy growth. That's great news.

Well first, the study indicated CO2, not global warming, as the source of the more prevalent and potent poison ivy. So causation is from CO2 to poison ivy. And causation is also 'supposed' to be from CO2 to global warming. Logically there is insufficient evidence to suggest a link between the two conclusions, based simply upon any truth there may be with the pre-conditions. These are two separate and non-related hypothesis. Nor is this a chain-link causation. The new study did not show a causation from global warming to poison ivy. And most relevant: The study shows no link between mankind and CO2; that was not part of the study. So why are so many claims being made beyond what was actually part of this study?

For instance, I am told that more local people who never got the rash from poison ivy are getting it now (never mind that perhaps these folks are also spending more time in the woods). So are we to believe that a few new cases of poison ivy is supposed to constitute proof of global warming?

So let's add my data to the unsound science: I haven't gotten poison ivy in years, and I'm mucking around in the woods all the time, and I am severely allergic. Even so, poison ivy is one of my favorite plants.

As long as we are being unscientific, I'm going to have to change my position: I'm now an advocate of global warming from here on out: Whatever I can do to convince people we need more global warming, and thus more poison ivy, and other flora, which will also benefit birds, because they eat the berries, I will do.

There are benefits to global warming: just think how much salt we spew into the environment via the roads each winter; global warming would reduce that. I could go on listing all the benefits...

I'll depart by quoting Professor Walter E. Williams
"For the past 800,000 years, there have been periods of approximately 100,000 years called Ice Ages, followed by a period of 10,000 years, a period called Interglacial, followed by another Ice Age. We're about 10,500 years into the present Interglacial period, namely, we're 500 years overdue for another Ice Age. If indeed mankind's activity contributes to the planet's warming, we might postpone the coming Ice Age."


Post a Comment

<< Home