Redwood National Parks Spreads Message About Climate Change Via Tweet in Apparent Pushback Against the Trump Administration

A tweet by our local Redwood National Parks is going viral.

Someone with access to the account joined other national park twitter feeds to support the growing movement of scientists and those concerned about the environment in resisting the Trump administration’s policies on climate change and other issues.

Last month the tweet would have seemed harmless–a mere notation of the place of redwood trees in the ecosystem. It states, “[Do you know]redwood groves are #1 carbon sink / acre in nature? About 200 tons an acre. More redwoods would mean less #climatechange #climate.” (See below)

In fact, Redwood National Parks has tweeted about climate change before.

But today’s tweet is hailed as part of resistance by National Parks employees to anti climate change agenda by the new Trump administration.

The opening volley occurred on President Donald Trump’s Inauguration Day with tweets about the size of the crowd there and disappearance of certain pages from the White House’s website. The Department of the Interior ordered the National Park Service to shut down all of its activity Twitter. The Service has since been allowed to resume tweeting but are staying away from controversial subjects…Not so, all of its member parks.

Badlands National Park then tweeted out a series of posts about climate change which were quickly deleted.

Then, the Golden Gate National Park’s twitter posted this:

Today, our local Redwood National Park added to the conversation. The tweets are part of a growing resistance movement by scientists and those concerned with climate change as the Trump administration orders the Environmental Protection Agency to cease new contracts, remove climate change pages from its website and stop releasing information until the work has been reviewed on a “case by case basis.”

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestmail

58 comments

  • The anti-science barbarians are trying to stop science again. Now they’re in the White House. It’s disgraceful.

    Throughout history there has been a constant struggle of the ignorant, who can’t understand science, to try to discredit it.

    • Yah know; I for one would be more inclined to take what the warming advocates say more seriously if every other sentence didn’t comprise a notification of a new cost. I worked for one of the five largest companies in California for a long time and helped them spend their environmental money. They spent a ton of it on compliance and extras. An example of an extra was frog ponds all over the place. Plus taxes. Every year it becomes more costly for Americans to do business in compliance with our laws, while the fucking Chinese have to shut down factories because they can’t see the sun.

    • Climate change is natural. Trying to control nature is foolish.

    • Hey, science is stupid! Deny everything! Don’t vaccinate your kids cause they need to be tough to survive preventable diseases! Pot is medicine, makes you stronger and stupider. The stars are evil! And cut down those goddamn redwoods, there blockin the light from my gaaaaarden!

      Trump is a fuckwad, but you folks make him look, hmmm, intelligent!

    • Scientists don’t know what they’re talking about… the earth is flat.

  • OMG! This is bad! How can one man have so much power? Isn’t that why we have Congress, so that no one man can can control the nation? Please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m very confused by Trump’s actions & how it isn’t illegal.

    We the people need to hold him accountable for his actions!!

  • Federal employees jacking around on the computer. Sure there is a campground that could use some work or a toilet to be scrubbed. Better start doing your job or….. you’re fired!!

  • You do know we’ve only been monitoring/measuring weather for just under 150 years? Do you think that’s enough data do make definitive conclusions about “climate change” or “global warming?” I don’t think so, natural weather trends would support periods of warming or other periods where the weather was colder for a number of years. Climate change isn’t any more important today than it has been for the last 1000 years. And if we are in a warming trend, do you actually believe for a second there’s anything you can do to prevent it?

    • While individually you may not be able to prevent climate change or global warming, by accepting the fact that there is always climate change, (and at this point in time the ice caps are indeed melting, the permafrost is melting, temperatures are rising, there are changes in frost days impacting fruit set) you will be better able to adapt to the changes. Refusing to accept there are changes simply means when the ocean comes in your home that has been there for generations you are not prepared to move. Plants that are adapted to certain habitats may not be able to adapt quickly enough, and may become extinct. There are many aspects of our environment and lives that are dependent are certain basic weather parameters. Temperatures are rising, ocean levels are rising. This is happening already, quibbling about whether or not the changes are man made is somewhat of a diversion from the fact it is happening and we’re in the middle of it. It’s kinda silly to pretend that humans have no impact on the climate, but if that’s what some folks what to believe it would still be wise to pay attention to and accept the changes from global warming that can cause major changes and disruptions in the food system, water system, and infrastructure and plan for how to best adapt.

    • Have you seen photos of Chinese cities? Do you you realize that Los Angeles, New York, Denver the Bay Area and a multitude of other cities in the U.S. would look like that without auto emission rules, coal power plant regulations etc.? And you think there is nothing that can be done to make the human impact on the environment on the earth less?

      • I did not say I don’t believe humans are making a huge impact. What I said is that even if others don’t believe the changes are caused by humans there is still no disputing that changes are happening, and maybe that’s a first step to getting others to wrap their heads around what’s going on.

    • Try looking at the temperature animation. Then try to understand what it shows. On the other hand, it’s a lot less effort to just agree with those who live in a world of “alternative facts”.

    • 87: we can study climate and atmosphere for thousands of years back using polar and glacial ice core samples. Based on that, your badlands park guy was able to tell you that co2 is higher now than in 650,000 years. Dude. Pay attention. Listen to what terri is saying….we know there are cycles, but burning fossil fuels is sending this cycle to a disasterous level. And its going to bite us in our butts!

      • CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere over the past 800,000 years.

        https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

        As Ernestine notes, figures from prehistoric times are garnered from ice-core data. It is not an inexact science. We know these figures are correct, within a slight variable. CO2 didn’t get much above 300ppm at any time in those 800,000 years.

        “The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century, to 399 ppm as of 2015. The present concentration is the highest in at least the past 800,000 years and likely the highest in the past 20 million years.” – wikipedia

        It’s now at 406.10 PPM. That’s far, far too high for the continued comfortable existence of this organic lifeform on this planet.

        • This 52+ minute video is worth your time to watch in full.
          ‘Abrupt Climate Change and Extreme Events : Prof Paul Mayewski (September 2016) ‘
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NtU8Nydlk4

          Paul is the person that revolutionized the use of ice core data in determining the effects of human caused climate change.

          We’re literally on thin ice, both in the Arctic and the Antarctic. The dire nature of our circumstance here on Earth cannot be exaggerated.

  • thank you redwood nation park team..you are a shining light in the darkness that is trump…RESIST

  • RogueNasa is tweeting now
    https://twitter.com/roguenasa/status/824417957753323522
    (Not really sure how to link to them).

  • These guys are my new heroes.
    #supportnationalparks

  • Not to argue with anyone but there’s good science on both sides of the coin, I tend to not just take an opinion seriously when we see taxes on the coat tails of many “reports”. And if Al Gore supports something, there’s going to be a new tax.

    • No, there is not *good* science on both sides. OVERWHELMINGLY scientists agree we are contributing to the problem.

      Look at this. This is an example I saw Arnold Swarzenegger give in a speech:
      Even if you don’t believe in greenhouse gases warming up this great greenhouse of a planet: How about pollution of the air? And water? Would you rather be in a room, closed doors, for 8 hours with an electric motor running at full speed, or in that same room with a gasoline motor running at full speed?

      And you worry about taxes. Is this you?:
      “Uh, how much will it *cost* me to not be in that room for 8 hours with the gasoline motor running at full speed? Because there’s no point living if we have to pay anything to keep our air clean so we can breathe clean air!”

      Here is Arnold’s speech on his Facebook page:
      https://www.facebook.com/arnold/posts/10154465062371760

    • Well said Rex. Genius scientists who refuse to be hushed have excited other scientists with facts. Sun, volcanoes, natural rhythms, to name a few. If they keep it up, they will be able to predict when volcanoes will erupt. Patterns are cool. Politicians are not.

  • You would think that a young vigorously growing forest would convert and hold more CO2 than a ancient declining forest.

  • The boss of national employees put a temporary halt on all national employees persuasions, while they’re undergoing department scrutiny. The employees blatantly rebel against the bosses temporary orders.
    Is it the scrutiny they rebel against?
    Doesn’t this “rebellion” make them more worthy of scrutiny?
    I don’t understand their rebellion against scrutiny.
    I would be proud of being scrutinized by my boss and cleared from all wrong doing. I would be happy to be handed new instructions to better my job. I would be overjoyed to carry out scrutinized orders to improve the company I work for.
    In this particular case, the boss is concerned over the past mismanagement of public lands. Forests are rotting & burning, people are homeless from lack of affordable building materials, & employees are acting out politically instead of properly.
    What are the employees rebelling about? All bosses review all depts of standards before carrying on.

    • “Review,” huh? How long are you gonna go along with shutting people up?

      I, for one, WANT my scientists to be able to speak about climate change, or anything actually scientific (short of state secrets). They’re MY scientists.

      Shutting people up is how tyranny begins. These people are PUBLIC servants, not company employees of Trump. I pay them, not Trump (a tax avoider), and I don’t want my best minds shut up by the President of the United States.

      That is Putin’s way, it is NOT the American way.

      • Where were you when the previous presidents did the same thing with different depts?
        Where were you when previous presidents hushed opposing scientists?

        • Right here. This is unprecedented suppression of vital info. Your ignorance is a thing to behold.

          Descended from the “world is flat” people? Or perhaps the “world is at the center of the universe” people? Ignorance fought tooth and nail against the scientific discoveries that debunked those popular, unscientific misconceptions. And here you are again.

          • It is YOUR ignorance that is a thing to behold. You decry the “world is at the center of the universe people” all the while oblivious to the fact that those people were the consensus of the day that you espouse. Consensus is NOT science. The Geocentrism that you mock was espoused by the majority of “scientists”, at the behest of the government, in the exact same way that Anthropogenic global warming is today. Sheep like you bought the propaganda and denounced the Heliocentrists the same way people are denouncing anyone who questions climate change (formerly known as global warming) today. Guess what genius, the Heliocentrists were right. The consensus was wrong!
            You also whine about tyranny stemming from shutting people up while trying to shut people up. If these government paid morons were tweeting about the mythology of man made global warming, you would, no doubt, be all for shutting them up. You are a typical, left wing, hysterical hypocrite with an acute inability to think for himself. Ignore all of the past predictions that were MASSIVELY wrong and stick close to the herd; it is safer there.

            • 100% spot on! Rollin21 ftw!

            • I thought that might go over your head.

              In this case, the consensus of the day I speak about is the popular, unscientific notion that humanity is not contributing to global climate change. That consensus is chock-full of non-scientific people. On the other side is the scientific people, the vast majority of whom would debunk the popular, nonscientific “belief” that we can’t contribute to global climate change. So once again I am with science crowd trying to fight against popular, non-scientific “beliefs”, and you’re with the crowd holding science back for whatever reasons.

              You have a dangerously shortsighted view, skewed by your unwillingness to listen to the scientists of your day. You would have to really find the outlier scientist to support your belief.

              • Science has shown that the solar flare seasons of the sun are in rhythm with the flow of C02 & volcanoes. Studies also show that the popular “tons” of c02 is a myth. Studies also show that all life depends upon C02 for survival. Trees & plants, even marine life, turn it into oxygen. Studies also prove that life itself exhales the C02 needed for survival. Unless you are on a mission to destroy planet earth, it would be an idea to take all studies into account & then decide for yourself whether or not YOU should stop breathing in order to save .. destroy… the planet.
                I’m sick & tired of hearing stories about school age depression. DEAR CHILDREN, IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT.

              • True Science doesn’t use consensus. It uses facts based upon EVERY piece of real evidence at hand, & is constantly reviewing & gathering more evidence to dismiss or to embrace. Science is not the ALL knowing. Science is deduction. Global warming studies did not use all facts, nor all evidence. The more people became aware of the political mess, the oftener the political mess changed it’s titles. Nobody who has done their homework is fooled.

  • I saw our air changing when I was 9 yrs. old in Los Angeles, and that was 68 yrs. ago. My father told me what this would lead to and could be avoided, but as long as someone was in pocket nothing would ever happen to change this.

    And, as for lack of building materials, we need to start growing Hemp again. It would take care of that problem plus save our forests.

  • 200 tons/acre per ? Hour? Day? Year? Millennia? Seems like an Important part of the statistic. Does anyone know how this is measured? Carbon is fairly vague, co? Co2? Do plants/ redwoods clean Co or just Co2 which every one of us “pollutes” with every breath. Plants need Co2 and we need O2. Is the industrial pollution from factories and autos cleaned by plants? Does anyone have any good links to answer these questions and others?

    • Good questions! My instincts said to search for a scientist who is completely “discredited” by those who crave carbon taxes. Willie Soon meets that requirement & then some. He stresses the importance of C02 for creating 02. He has numbers available for just about everything C02 related. Bookmark him if the “new” study about old trees vs young trees comparison isn’t yet discussed on his page.
      http://www.landandwaterusa.com/Save-Willie-Soon.htm
      And the hit page against him.
      https://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon

    • “Does anyone know how this is measured?”

      Charles Keeling knows.
      http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/history_legacy/keeling_curve_lessons

      “Looking ahead, if the rate of fossil-fuel burning continues to rise on a business-as-usual trajectory, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order 1500 ppm. The atmosphere will not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future. Unless serious efforts are made to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels, it is clear that we are on a threshold of a new era of geologic history, one with climate very different from that of our ancestors. These curves not only demonstrate the seriousness of the global warming problem, but also illustrate the power of continuous time series to communicate and clarify the essential science.”

    • A visual tour of CO2 emissions.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ0o2E4d8Ts

      “A new high-resolution computer model created by NASA shows carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas driving global warming, as you’ve never seen it before. “

    • https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/06/13/atmosphere-hits-grim-milestone-as-co2-levels-will-never-go-back-scientists-say.html

      “…the long-term trend is steadily upward because humans are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than plants and other natural “sinks” can pull back out again.”

      “Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will continue to rise even though global greenhouse gas emissions from industry may be levelling off somewhat, the study adds — because each year still represents a net addition to the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide is a very long-lived greenhouse gas. Thus, even by 2050, the researchers don’t think we’ll find any way of getting back below 400 ppm.

      “In the longer term, a reduction in CO2 concentration would require substantial and sustained cuts in anthropogenic emissions to near zero,” they write. Barring dramatic cuts in fossil fuel emissions, combined with the development of some kind of “negative emissions” technology that actively withdraws carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, we’ll see rising carbon dioxide concentrations for some time, they note.”

  • Unless Calif has taken back it’s land from the feds, chances are the next president in office will be selling it. They’ve been gung ho grabbing it, stacking it for the party power, but dadgummitall, non party player Trump won instead. Gawdawful man wants to return all lands back to their rightful states. Party players want to sell it.
    They’ll still be trying to pass bills in preparation for their turn to win. They know how to grab & can grab again. Ask ol Huffboy, he’s become a pro.
    You might want to listen to the entire podcast, because as usual, many things are tied together. Block grants that gives the feds the power of jurisdiction in your favorite precinct to federalize anybody they wish to. Very useful clause when the real estate buyers start bidding.
    http://krisannehall.com/chaffetz-returning-power-land-states/
    Barney Miller is SOL.

  • SCREW PRESIDENT FART!

    THE ENVIRONMENT IS IN DANGER!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *