The Full Pink Moon sets early morning over the McCardle Bridge to East Boston. According to the Farmer's Almanac, the name comes "from the herb moss pink, or wild ground phlox, which is one of the earliest widespread flowers of the spring." Our own ground phlox just started blossoming this week, about two weeks earlier than last year but not as lushly floriferous.
No two years are the same when it comes to leafing and flowering out, we noted in the comments at TigerHawk the other day in a post where he photodocumented the difference between bloom times of Bradford Callery Pears along Witherspoon Street in Princeton, in full blossom two weeks earlier this year than last. That's what integrated pest management is all about. As we commented:
You get an A in Natural History for your excellent field observations. I used to keep an illustrated journal while studying plant communities and such in the Radcliffe Seminars Landscape program [now translocated to the Arnold Arboretum] years ago and documented a longer span of earlier and later harbingers of spring. From a March 26 post last year :
"Early spring bloomers were flowering much earlier in the season back in 1991. As we noted then, "The winter has been notably mild, so we might expect things to be a little ahead of schedule."
"The earliest blooming maple, Acer saccharinum (Silver Maple), only now starting to flower in our side yard, was already in full bloom on March 6, 1991. Get those global-warming folks on the phone!"
After this year's  mild winter, the Silver Maple was back to its early blooming tricks.
Re those global-warming folks, you may or may not have caught the politically incorrect story in the Telegraph this week about how the warming stopped in 1998.
"A skeptic says a herd instinct is at work in science," went the blurb in this June, 1996 article we clipped from the NYT -- back when we still read the "paper of record" -- on the work of Dr. Richard S. Lindzen of MIT, who "has shown no hesitancy to draw the fire of most of his colleagues in atmospheric science." (Rick Friedman photo)
Then there was MIT Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen's Wall Street Journal op ed this Wednesday, "Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence." It's a great read. 'Course we have a yellowing NYT clipping in our snail files dated June 18, 1996 (above) by the same Professor Lindzen that says very much the same thing. That was 10 years ago. Two days before, on June 12, 1996, the WSJ had carried an op ed by Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, who noted that the latest report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had been tampered with following peer review "to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular."
By the temperature of global-warming hysteria under the leadership of Al "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore, it appears no one was listening then, and no one is listening now. Scientists are only human, after all, and for many -- if not most -- getting the grants and the accolades and running with the herd trump the search for truth. Yet another example of a Fear Society Lite, with media elites reflexively promulgating the party line. As NBC's Andrea Mitchell admitted way back in 1990 (from an Insight magazine clipping in our snail files), "clearly the networks have made the decision now, where you'd have to call it advocacy."
"Politicized science can undo all the benefits humanity has reaped since the Renaissance," writes Thomas Lifson. Fortunately, there will still be fresh catnip, if not the dried, processed Nepeta cataria we served Baby Cakes this morning. Above, he sits in a drug-induced stupor after partaking of the weed.
"Global warming theory has the potential to cripple our standard of living and the process of improvement in the human condition," wrote our blogfriend Thomas Lifson of The American Thinker the other day:
We have published our own questions about the supposed “evidence” and its serious faults, but Professor Lindzen goes much further, pointing to a pattern of corruption of the scientific process itself, and bullying by the likes of Al Gore.
As questions are raised about its shaky foundations, its advocates resort to increasingly hysterical denunciations of deviation from the gospel, making clear that it is a theology more than a scientific theory.
The larger corruption of science is, if anything, even more serious. Politicized science can undo all the benefits humanity has reaped since the Renaissance, and plunge us into a new dark age, worse than the previous one.
Exactly right. In that sense, adherence to global warming is akin to devotion to "intelligent design." Belief and solidarity with fellow believers -- the importance of being noticed -- are more important than any scientific search for truth. One of Dr. Sanity's "many faces of denial."
Having had his fill, the Babe leaves the plate behind and heads for the back door. Note bits of dried catnip stuck to the backs of his legs. Lie down with catnip, get up with catnip on your fur.
It's a beautiful day out there. Not too hot and not too cold -- 64.4° -- with a gentle breeze under clear skies. Great for squirrel and birdwatching.
Update: The Friday Ark at Modulator is the place to go for watching animals of every ilk.