Poison Oak and Global Warming

[N80]

Did anyone hear or read the report that the poison oak and poison ivy crop was more lush this year due to global warming? I did not see the report but had several people mention it to me. They thought it was idiotic....which I did also. We had a good laugh and I didn't think about it for a while.

Then, I had several people come into my office with contact dermatitis typical of posion oak or ivy. They'd been exposed to it in their yards. Each one of these folks mentioned that they felt like global warming was the reason they had gotten poison oak. Each time I waited for a smile or punch line, but there was none. These were educated middle class people and to them it made perfect sense that global warming (which they obviosly felt to be as real as gravity) was responsible for the excess poison oak the resulted in their rash.

Now I'm not here to debate global warming...again. For arguments sake lets say it is as real as gravity. But there is no way on God's green earth that any rational person could make a connection between the effects of this presumed global warming and poison oak growth in the spring of 2007! The fact is that we (mid atlantic) had a warm wet spring and lots of poison oak. My back yard is full of it. (In fact, there seems to be slightly less in my back yard than in the last few springs on memory.)

I'm not really here to debate posion ivy growth either. My point is that the American public is as gullible and suggestable as any marketing department could want them to be. Put it on the radio, the TV or the internet and they'll buy. It is just staggering to me how serious these patients were. They've heard about global warming on TV....so it must be true. Then they heard on TV that the global warming was making poison oak grow more...so it must be true. It is just a small mental leap to go from those two points of info to realize how bad global warming already was in their own back yards and itchy hides. Unfortunately that small mental leap was the only mental exercise they are willing to bring to the table.

How can this nation remain great when its middle class (and I consider myself one of them...middle class that is) is so stupid and soft? It makes me want to sob. Seriously.

(For a point of reference, when I say middle class I'm not necessarily talking about household income. I'm talking about those of us considerably above the poverty line with decent incomes and educations but who are not amongst the very wealthy or powerful.)

 

[EddieWalker]

George,

I think it's more of a blame somebody, anybody, mentality then anything else. People get a rash from poisong oak, so they look for somebody else to blame for it besides themselves. The lazy mental aproach is also a big part of the problem. They hear on TV or the Radio that Global warming caused it, so they don't think past what they are told. Regardless of our silly it is, there are too many people who just automaticaly believe what they hear.

What really kills me is how often those sources are proven wrong. Time after time it comes out that there is no proof or evidence to support what they are reporting, but they just keep on passing along there silly stories.

Fortunately, it looks like we've turned a corner on global warming. I'm hearing more and more from those who are debunking it and those that support it are resorting to name calling instead of trying to support their positions.

Eddie

 

[California]

I suppose I hit your target demographic, and I never heard of this poison oak / global warming hypothesis.

But I'm simply curious if there might be a tie. Without using the words 'global warming' - does it seem that this year you are receiving the weather that usually is delivered to a different region of the country?

 

[hazmat]

I read the article in the newspaper a couple months ago, but was afraid to post here .

The "science" behind the theory is that the eco system is very sensative to minor changes in average temperatures - apparantly poison ivy & poison oak will thrive in our "northern" climates if it gets a couple degrees warmer.

While not a biologist, I do believe that plants are very sensative to minor temp swings - for example, when skiing (even here in NE) you see a major difference in the size of the trees at the top of the mountain vs. the bottom, we're only talking an elevation change of <2,000 ft. Another example is that my wife's hydrangeas struggle at our house, but thrive at my parents who are 100 mi south.

MODERATOR HAT ON NOW Lets leave the global warming part out of this discussion or we will have to shut it down (politics).

 

[hazmat]

msn article

seems that it is the increased CO2, not temp that makes for "super ivy"

 

[N80]

Right here, right now, it has been hotter than usual. But not hotter than ever nor hotter than anyone can remember.

Truth of the matter is that we had a warm spring with well spaced rains. Just right for fast growing vines. And everything else. It was a lush green spring and stayed that way longer into the summer than usual. But really, there has been no more poison oak, poison ivy, trumpeter vine, jasmine, honey suckle or kudzo than any other recent spring or summer.

The thing is, if global warming is a boon for poison oak, it would also be a boon for every other green growing thing. Tomatos, melons, cucumbers, etc etc etc.

The problem is that the rhetoric of global warming is couched in negativity. If it is going to cause an increase in something it has to be a bad thing (poison oak, hurricanes, etc). If it is going to cause a decrease in something it has to be a good thing (preferably cute and cuddly like a polar bear). The simple truth is that any universal change is going to statistically have as many good things as bad. You ever heard a global warming idealogue say anything good about it?

But still, that really isn't my beef. My beef is with people endowed with perfectly good minds and educations not be willing to use them. There is nothing remotely logical or even reasonable about making a connection with global warming and one years growth of poison oak. Nothing. And it is so sad that it will not even occur to people like this to doubt the assumption. Not even a little.

How do you spell 'bourgeoisie'?

 

[N80]

msn article

seems that it is the increased CO2, not temp that makes for "super ivy"

Yes, but why super ivy? Why not super kudzu or super corn? See what I'm saying?

As for politics etc, I made my first reply before I saw your replies. Again, my point has more to do with ignorance than politics. Lock thread as you see fit.

 

[hazmat]

Yes, but why super ivy? Why not super kudzu or super corn? See what I'm saying?

As for politics etc, I made my first reply before I saw your replies. Again, my point has more to do with ignorance than politics. Lock thread as you see fit.

Because the good scientists at Duke & Harvard tested Poison Ivy, not kudzo or corn. . Seriously, don't know why the ivy likes the CO2 so much...

Regarding why people link their rashes to global warming - they read it in USA today - some Phd's at Duke & Harvard did a study, it must be true...

Don't know if I'd call that ignorant, but they have other things on their mind and perhaps consider the newpaper & the prestigious universities as "trusted sources".

 

[hitekcountry]

287.93% of all scientists agree.

 

[Skyco]

I was concerned to read that CO2 thing awhile back when it was released...I have some property in NC that has, or HAD, rampant poison ivy. When I first bought it I got nailed bad twice, bad enough to go see the Dr. and get put on prednisone and THAT alone is some weird stuff to be on as I 'm sure N80 can testify. Stomach aches, hungry all the time, can't sleep, mood swings etc...
Now I've gotten very good at recognizing the stuff and have managed so far to stay out of it this year. I keep a strong mix of brush killer handy in sprayers, if it has 3 leaves it dies Problem is the dead stuff can still get you for years to come and once dead it is dang near impossible to recognize.
There are ancient poison ivy vines up some of the trees that are as big as your forearm... the absolute worst case I ever had was after Hurricane Hugo- was helping my dad clean up some fallen trees and there were apparently some poison ivy vines up the trunks...amazing how far and wide a chainsaw can distribute poison ivy vapor...that also resulted in a trip to the Dr. and much misery...

Actually the report I read said that, and my numbers are off I'm sure, say CO2 goes up 200PPM, normal plants may grow say 5% faster but Poison Ivy grows say 150% faster

 

[IH3444]

I'm still trying to figure out how the other planets in our solar system are warming up, along with the earth.

 

[jinman]

I'm still trying to figure out how the other planets in our solar system are warming up, along with the earth.

When I was a kid, almost nobody had air conditioners in their cars. Now, everybody says they gotta have 'em. That's indisputable evidence to me. It must be gettin' hotter.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

When I was a kid, almost nobody had air conditioners in their cars. Now, everybody says they gotta have 'em. That's indisputable evidence to me. It must be gettin' hotter.

As I recall, back then we only had trucks and tractors. It was the onset of cars that beset us with wussiness.

 

[billbill1]

Jim, when I was a kid there were very few cars that had air conditioning. More of the wealthy types had it. Mid to late sixties was when it really started getting popular and more and more people had it in their cars. I bought a new car in 1981 without air, never again!! I think I'm getting wiser with age. Sure feels better in the house with it too.

 

[IH3444]

The problem actually is global humidity, not warming....

 

[N80]

The problem actually is global humidity, not warming....

Agreed. It is 120 in Tuscon, but that's a dry heat and feels like 65. It is 101 here and feels like 190.

I would like to comment on the MSN article but I'm up to my eyebrows in patients right now.....so I'll be back to bore you later.

Hazmat, I think we can keep this a-political, but again, shut it down if needed.

 

[hazmat]

...
Hazmat, I think we can keep this a-political, but again, shut it down if needed.

So far, so good.

 

[Spiveyman]

The problem actually is global humidity, not warming....

HA!!! I about busted a gut on that one. I don't know where you're from, but that's the line here in KY. "It's not the heat, it's the humidity."

Two things: Weather. It changes. Just ask a weather man. Last year we had the wetest year on record, this year one of the dryest. Which one do you blame on glabal "increased-humidity?"

The other thing, I couldn't agree more about the general public and their willingness to follow the media. Remember the year of the shark attack? and the pictures of hundreds of hammerhead sharks schooling together? You would have thought the sharks formed a union intent on wiping out all ocean going humans. A couple of stories on the news and it was a Jaws-fest. In fact, that year shark bites were no more than other years. So when did American's stop being rugged individuals and start being mindless lemmings? As Earl Pits would call it, the wussification of America!

I say go buy a tractor, burn some diesel fuel, and enjoy the bumper crops!!!

 

[dmccarty]

My point is that the American public is as gullible and suggestable as any marketing department could want them to be. Put it on the radio, the TV or the internet and they'll buy.

I agree and disagree. My disagree is with the word, "American." I think humanity has this problem. Not just us in the US.

Marketing/Propaganda works. That is why companies spend billions of shekels to get people to buy one sugary, carbonated, acid water over another sugary, carbonated, acid water. Or wine. Or beer. And for goodness sakes WATER!

My dad got a bad case of Poison Oak/Ivey all over his hands, arms and face a few weeks ago when he helped clean up four trees I had cut up/down. I guess it was CO2 that caused it. Or maybe it was the fact that he kept refusing to wear gloves and kept wiping the sweat from his forehead. Nah had to be the CO2.

Later,
Dan

 

[N80]

Okay, let's go to the MSN article. First, let's look at the headline of the article which was released by the Associated Press:

"Another global warming gift: itchier poison ivy"

I suspect that this is as far as most people got, or at least that is all they heard of the 27 news segment recited by some talking head. Now look at the article about what was actually done. Duke started with an assumption that poison ivy will grow more vigorously in a high carbon dioxide environment. (I'll mention it later but doesn't that put Duke in line for the 2007 DUH! awards?) To test that assumption against a point that they apparently felt would be environmentally relevant they grew the plants in an environment artificially set up to duplicate what they project will be the CO2 levels in 2050. When they did so, the ivy got real big and real poisonous.

Now I don't expect the typical Westerner (I'll defer from using the term American) to be a scientist, a biologist, a philosopher or a statistician. I would expect that anyone who had read or heard about this study to realize that nowhere, at any point did it ever suggest that we have more, bigger or nastier poison ivy now or at any other time for any other reason.

But no, these typical Americans have to inform me that their poison ivy is bad because of global warming and they clearly believed what they were saying. It was a fact. No, it was more than that, it was a scientific fact!. Therefore, they could no longer be reasoned with. Who in their right mind would dispute scientific fact.

Now let's take it a step further, because I know you guys aren't like the average maroon on the street and might appreciate a few observations.

And for the sake of TBN peace and harmony we will assume that global warming is real and that CO2 levels will increase. If you don't believe these things (and belive me, I understand) then the whole thing becomes all the more incredulous.

First is the assumption that CO2 will fuel growth in poison ivy. Duh. Plants (the vast majority) use CO2 as their primary source of carbon which is their primary element for growth and food production via photosynthesis. So it is hardly a leap of the imagination to assume more CO2 = bigger plants. But, poison ivy seems to be more sensitive to this than other woody plants. But that is not a mystery, Duke already knew that and said so.

So why did they choose poison ivy to study and report on? They clearly studied other plants in this six year(!) experiment. (Wonder how much that cost and how much tax money funded it!?!) Why all the fuss about poison ivy? I'll let you decide that why. But I sure would have liked to know the effect on wheat, corn, pines, fruit trees etc. How about you?

Second, how did they decide on a CO2 level to test? They decided to test what they would be like in 2050. Fine, what's wrong with that? Well, I'd like to hear what Duke had to say about projecting last year's hurricane season. I feel sure that they would have agreed with the NWS that it was going to be terrible. Of course it was one of the mildest on record. Ask Duke if they can tell you if it will rain at your house tomorrow! Yet, they presume to know, to even have a guess, what it is going to be like in 50 years! Seriously folks, that is scientifically unacceptable. And why would Duke and Harvard make scientific judgments on such clearly and horribly designed studies? Again, I'll let you answer that for yourself. But I will say, without a shadow of a doubt that it has nothing to do with the furtherance of either pure or applied science.

So what is their conclusion of this six year(!) study? Well here it is:

“The fertilization effect of rising CO2 on poison ivy ... and the shift toward a more allergenic form of urushiol have important implications for the future health of both humans and forests.”

What rising CO2????? It may be rising but they did not test that. They tested against one projected level! What "important" implications? Important? What do they mean by important? Important like heart disease? Lung cancer? Three feet of water in downtown New York in 2 years? Give me a break.

If you ever needed an example to point out the purely idealogical aim of many 'scientific' studies and the media hype surrounding them, then here is it. There was a point to the design, execution and reporting of this study and it had nothing to do with the future implications of poison ivy growth. It is an intent to change minds and secure followers. The facts speak for themselves and deciet it the only rational explanation. If you stongly belive in globa warming, this type of science is the most damaging evidence against your belief. If global warming is your idealogy or political rallying point, this type of 'science' and 'journalism' is an effective tool in your conquest.

For everyone else: Do not be decieved. Do not be a passive vessel of propaganda. Recognize the difference between fact and truth!