Global Warming Hysteria

According to wikipedia, "Deforestation" is:

the conversion of forested areas to non-forest land use such as arable land, pasture, urban use, logged area or wasteland. Generally the removal or destruction of significant areas of forest cover has resulted in a degraded environment with reduced biodiversity. In many countries, massive deforestation is ongoing and is shaping climate and geography.

Ooh -- sounds bad. So, it stands to reason that "reforestation" -- an increase and spread of forest lands -- would be a good thing. Well, it's not. Why?

Because it doesn't fit the global warming hysteria template. Check out this "news" item I saw today:

Tundra Disappearing At Rapid Rate

Science Daily — Forests of spruce trees and shrubs in parts of northern Canada are taking over what were once tundra landscapes--forcing out the species that lived there. This shift can happen at a much faster speed than scientists originally thought, according to a new University of Alberta study that adds to the growing body of evidence on the effects of climate change.

The fact that the forest is growing and displacing the tundra -- you know that vast wasteland where nothing grows and is inhabited by ... virtually nothing -- can't be a good thing because it's "caused" by global warming. So this story has to be put in a negative framework.

All logic and common sense must bow before the imperative of advancing the global warming template.

The other part of the template that must be supported at all costs is that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus which holds that global warming is an indisputable scientific fact. Accordingly, look how the paragraph ends: "a new University of Alberta study that adds to the growing body of evidence on the effects of climate change."

Notice how this study doesn't add to the body of evidence regarding climate change. No, the study adds to the body of evidence on the effects of climate change -- i.e., global warming.

Think I'm exaggerating? Maybe. But, let's take a time out. I saw this "news" piece about 4:00pm this afternoon. So, I'm going to do a quick search and see how this "news" has been picked up and translated by our objective friends in the mainstream media. BRB

tick ... tick ... tick ... tick


OK, I'm back. I don't think I was wrong in my prediction, just a little premature. Here's what I found:

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. News
Global warming could rapidly escalate the expansion of forests into tundra landscapes in Canada's North and force out indigenous species such as caribou, according to a group of Canadian researchers.

Live Science
Rising temperatures fueled by global warming are causing forests of spruce trees to invade Arctic tundra faster than scientists originally thought, evicting and endangering the species that dwell there and only there, a new study concludes.

Environment News Service
Northern Canada's tundra is disappearing at a rapid rate, with forests of spruce trees and shrubs taking over the once frozen landscape, new research finds. The study offers further evidence of climate change and the authors warn it shows that the shift in the Canadian tundra can happen at a much faster speed than scientists originally thought.

The research examines changes in the treeline between forest and tundra ecosystems, a prominent landscape feature in both Arctic and mountain environments.

Scientists have long believed that the treeline will advance as global temperatures continue to increase, but the new study shows that such a shift will not always occur gradually.

This story doesn't appear to have been picked up by the mainstream media -- yet. But, I think it's only a matter of time. In fact, I saw the initial Science Daily article being disseminated as a press release on one site (see here). So, it looks like the steps are: (1) new study "supporting" global warming comes out. (2) environmental groups send out press releases to their reliable media outlets. And, I bet step (3) is the breathless stories in tomorrow's major media outlets.

Stay tuned.