The slow creep of climate alarmism

For the last several years, Whitham said, he and his colleagues had used a series of experimental gardens to study how plants are being affected by warming temperatures—in near real-time—and how their populations might evolve due to climate change…

…In these gardens, located in various ecosystems and elevations around the Southwest—from deserts to alpine forests—Whitham planted different genotypes of the same species… Preliminary results from his experimental gardens, 10 in total, suggest that species have already shifted their range in response to changing temperatures.

This is from an article that is almost three years old.

I recently wrote a script to surface old articles from the bottom of my Pocket queue. For years I have added more articles than I’ve read, creating a time capsule of sorts.

This is one of the first articles it spat out. But there’s been a pretty clear oeuvre – the variation, unpredictability and changing extremes associated with climate change have been presented to us consistently, over a long period.

We’ve now known about anthropogenic climate change for an entire generation. And yet there is somehow still a debate about the suitability of alarmism.

There will of course be winners and losers to whatever action is taken, making resistance and motivated scepticism completely rational. But the clear lack of panic among those not already directly affected is not.

There is something broken among both our informational environments and our public discourse that we can continue to treat all of these instances as discrete events, rather than as of a whole. We should all be alarmed.

As always my emphasis.