A bat-killing fungus that can't tolerate heat above 68 degrees should wane in a human-warmed world. Yet it's spreading, killing more bats -- which suggests blame-mankind alarmists' climate models are flawed.
First found domestically in 2006 in upstate New York, white-nose fungus since has spread west to 16 states and four Canadian provinces, killing up to 6.7 million bats. Expected to peak this winter in Western Pennsylvania, researchers say it could wipe out five North American species of hibernating bats.
Unlike honeybee-killing Colony Collapse Disorder, no "batkeepers" manage healthy populations to mitigate the effects of white-nose fungus. That, combined with bats' beneficial hunger for crop-destroying pests -- worth an average of $74 per acre to farmers, one study says -- makes the fungus a mystery that science must solve.
That effort should stay off the climate alarmists' path. With the fungus growing at only between 39 and 59 degrees and unable to survive 68-plus degrees, their "settled science" of dramatic, human-caused warming in recent years is at odds with the bats' worsening plight.
So, too, is European bats' seeming immunity -- another reason to look elsewhere than mankind and climate for the white-nose fungus cure.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.