Bjorn Lomborg- Another environmental scare debunked: Acid rain killing all forests was the main environmental scare in the 1980s. A new half-century study shows acid rain doesn’t kill trees— actually, trees grow more with acid rain!
Science Direct- What happens to trees and soils during five decades of experimental nitrogen loading?
Define extinct.
“While the plant can be found in other countries around the Caribbean…”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-first-us-species-has-been-driven-to-extinction-due-to-sea-level-rise/ar-BB1q8d2x?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=460ba67573124372b527eefde21d5151&ei=71
“it’s a big deal when we lose species from an entire country,”
I never knew that the entirety of the US consisted of only Key Largo. All those travels I did south of the border must have been to something akin to Never-Never Land.
When all of mankind is gone, no more worries. GOT THAT?
If you think acid rain is a good thing, you must think Sudbury, ON was a garden of Eden in the 1970s.
Yes, I remember the moonscape around Sudbury and Ramsay Lake being highly acidic. But that was local and the rhetoric around industrial emissions was over the top. But sulphur emissions or fly ash, refrigerants etc. are relatively easy to control so they can’t serve the purpose of shutting down industrial civilization. Hence the move to the dreaded CO2 and methane emissions.
It is now.
Wonder of liming…
Acid rain, refrigerants / ozone layer. Prototypes for the global warming / climate change hoax.
Don’t be silly. The claim wasn’t that acid rain was killing trees … but that it was destroying historic landmarks … like public statues, and buildings like Notre Dame cathedral in Paris …
Oh. Wait. That doesn’t matter anymore either.
I am a gardener and one thing which I have learned over the years is that “Mother Nature is a mean old bitch”.
I do a weekly weed and I kill baby trees (I LOVE shrubs and trees, but only the ones which I plant) and next week, there are even more it seems. Look at past civilizations (central America comes to mind) and their monuments/ cities have been hidden by the jungle growth.
Another things, apparently with all of the carbon dioxide, the southern edge of the Sahara Desert is retreating north as more vegetation grows. Am I the only one who thinks that this is a good thing?
We have to ignore the benefits of CO2 if we’re going to fit in.
I remember the Nature of Things special back in the early 80s where Suzuki breathlessly claimed that acid rain caused by coal fired generating stations in the Ohio Valley was killing the maple forests of Quebec. It turns out that they had an early thaw that year which got the sap moving in the trees. A hard frost later on froze the sap and killed a lot of trees.
Dr. Fruit Fly Guy made a lot of unfounded claims over his so called career.
The effects of acid rain were questionable back in the late 70s and early 80s, but a lot of researchers were climbing on board that wagon. They soon discovered that global warming was much more profitable offering long term security for their “research”.
Northern lakes tended to be acidic in the first place due detritus from boreal forest and exposure to sulfide minerals. Highly buffered lakes did not have their pH changed much due to acidic rainfall. BTW rain is slightly acidic to begin with.
The moonscape around Sudbury resulted from intense logging, shallow soils over bedrock and uncontrolled ground level roasting of ores which indeed did result in erosion on the thin soils and local acidification of nearby lakes. Subsequent smelting under controlled conditions and tall stacks stopped that.