having a ball

By Jim Stanford on September 27, 2013

Tags: , ,

TreeFight hosts the inaugural TreeBall.

Snow this week — 8 inches or more in the Tetons — has induced a bit of hibernation around Jackson Hole. (Lord knows this site has been in slumber!) Many residents have been content to curl up with a book beside the fire, but not these dudes, who already made some turns on Teton Pass.

Nothing shakes off the autumn doldrums like a good party, and this weekend features back-to-back soirees. Tonight at the National Museum of Wildlife Art, David Gonzales throws his inaugural TreeBall, a benefit for efforts to save whitebark pines, followed Saturday by the Jackson Hole Ski Club’s Ski Ball.

A slew of artists have donated works for the TreeFight event. Ballgoers are invited to come in snazzy attire and swing to the sounds of the Jackson Hole Jazz Foundation Big Band, conducted by Tony Saladino. The museum’s Rising Sage Cafe will serve appetizers. Tickets are $50, available here.

TreeBall comes on the day of more dire news about climate change. The loss of whitebark pines spells grave consequences for the Yellowstone ecosystem.

On Saturday, the ski club throws its annual bash atop the gondola at Jackson Hole Mountain Resort, where the slopes already are looking wintry. As of this writing, the Ski Ball is nearly sold out. But the club is holding a raffle for a deluxe trip to a Mexican beach resort, a prospect that sounds pretty good right now. Raffle entrants need not attend the ball; tickets are available here.

Share

Posted under Art, Entertainment, Environment, Music

13 Comments so far

  1. Patty D September 27, 2013 11:05 pm

    “TreeBall comes on the day of more dire news about climate change.”

    I’m sure someone thought the loss of the last ice age was ‘dire news about climate change’.

    Things happen. None is so important that they have to be on the planet – you, me, anyone or thing. The planet will fix itself just fine with or without us. There’s nothing wrong with the planet. There’s nothing wrong with climate change. The problem is always people thinking the World is coming to an end and they need to stop it. Let it be.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=is-combating-climate-change-worth-t-2009-01-14

    RE: “These Dudes” Nice. Perfect example of adaptation to the environment and enjoying it.

  2. Paul September 28, 2013 10:31 am

    Joe Holler & Andrew Reynolds skiing on the pass. Of course.

    $50 buck tickets. Hummmm.

    I like David’s obsession with photographing women.

    I’d donate money to watch that.

  3. Chad September 28, 2013 11:26 am

    Call me crazy Patty, but I’d l like my child to survive in to old age, and not be bucked off a planet we ruined so we could keep our homes a comfy 72 degrees for under $100 a month.

    Sure, the planet will survive – but thats not the point. I’d like us to survive with it.

  4. joe September 28, 2013 1:51 pm

    at least we can all agree , to date, that none of the IPCC’ s predictions have come close to being correct. good luck with the dire and grave. p.s. the gal is standing on a Doug Fir.

  5. SkiGirl September 28, 2013 3:34 pm

    http://www.wyoroad.info/highway/webcameras/US26287WindRiverLake/US26287WindRiverLakeAll.html

    WYDOT’s webcam shows the good skiing is northeast of Jackson by Brooks Lake.

  6. Holly September 28, 2013 5:25 pm

    Phallus-shaped trees and attractive women atop them. I’m not surprised it’s a Doug Fir.

    Back in the 60′s, the Population Explosion (see Time magazine from Jan. 11, 1960) was the Bogeyman. The threat was hyped way before then, too.

    “mainstream intellectuals such as HG Wells, WB Yeats, Virginia Woolf and DH Lawrence were proposing not just sterilization but actual extermination.” The Guardian

    Ignorance about the future often outpaces knowledge. And the cost of fixing a ‘problem’, or adapting to a ‘problem’, often creates its own problems. Think: The War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, Iraq, Ethanol mandates which drove up the price of food and drove down gas mileage, etc.

    Chad’s kids may suffer a greater threat to their welfare by the ‘solution’ dished out by Washington. There’s NO EVIDENCE that the future is bleak, only different.

  7. fish j September 29, 2013 8:40 am

    Simply feel good, high dollar tree porn.

  8. Chad September 29, 2013 9:24 am

    Unless you have a time machine, there’s no evidence that the future is bleak. Thats where science steps in using their method resulting in extrapolation. Not that important – just got us to the moon and back, tripled our life spans, and ended the war.

    And overpopulation is the driver of conventional fuel consumption, driving CO2 emissions, no? Point being the population explosion is still being felt. If the article was limited to U.S. population, then it lacks sufficient breadth. Plus, call me crazy for not getting on the ‘science is ignorant’ bandwagon based on a piece published a half century ago in a non-scientific journal citing non-scientists.

    I feel as if the right has just shifted the narrative. Before it was “humans arent causing this!” Now its “It wont be that bad!” Next it will be “We told you so!”. I have no evidence of this…but I’ve extrapolated.

  9. RE: Chad September 29, 2013 10:19 pm

    Chad:

    Perhaps you could have been the solution and not had a kid. Practice what you preach. Or better yet, preach with an understanding of what the real World is capable of doing.

    What’s great about David’s efforts is that he takes the bull by the horns and tries to make his corner of the World a better place. He isn’t waiting for anybody’s approval or forcing acceptance for his ideas upon others.

    None said science didn’t have value. Science is simply high-quality ignorance. The more you learn, the more you realize there’s a whole lot more you don’t know.

    Look at an issue from all sides and weigh all the evidence or lack thereof. I’m sure you can do that. Politicians do that but they also address the immediate needs of the people.

    Politics, not science, drives decision making around the World. Science is just a talking point.

    If I stopped by David’s house and told him to give me his car for destruction because it creates greenhouse emissions, he might have a negative opinion about that.

    A poor country, or a rich Wyoming, with massive coal reserves will have a negative opinion about taking away an energy source. Doesn’t matter the science.

    Cold science may say that you have no more value to the planet. It’s time for you to check out.

    Perhaps “tripled our life spans” was in fact a boondoggle – too many people, too expensive to maintain, too costly for the climate & the rest of the environment. I think you can prove that scientifically.

    BTW, science tripled our lifespan thanks to petrochemicals, and plastics, and probably all the things you hate.

    The point, that you apparently missed, was that the solution to climate change may be worse than the cure. Or, that there are better avenues to pursue with limited resources to make the World a better place.

    Lastly, you want to assume a comment is partisan in nature when in fact it is simply an opinion based upon one’s understanding of an issue. You’re engaged in political science – jumping to conclusions without facts to back them up. The ‘right’ may indeed shift the narrative and the ‘left’ may too. Nonetheless, the ‘cost vs benefit’ issues have been active for over a decade. The narrative may shift focus but the issues remain the same.

    Holly

  10. joe September 30, 2013 10:47 am

    actually the math is saying that we have 30 years of cooling ahead. the real question is will we survive a dysfunctional government and a tangential media?

  11. Karl September 30, 2013 9:15 pm

    Joe’s right.

    “But poke beneath the surface of the IPCC’s latest offering and the confection is revealed for what it is. The IPCC’s quantification of the separate components of the warming since 1951 (greenhouse gases, cooling from aerosols, internal variability) is deemed only “likely” (66%-100% likelihood). Only at the IPCC could the sum of these components be given a greater likelihood than the individual building blocks. Perhaps the most revealing aspect is that none of the climate scientists involved seems embarrassed at this nonsense or protests at the manipulation of science for political ends.”

    From The Wall Street Journal(9-30)
    “The Political Science of Global Warming”

    I don’t care if it’s real or not, or what causes it, but it is interesting to see the back & forth play by play.

    Look at your health care options via the exchange website and tell me you aren’t getting screwed if you live in Wyoming.

    The idea that the government is going to fix an issue like climate change is scary. They can’t keep government open or functioning in a productive, professional manner.

  12. Climate Change Risks October 4, 2013 6:48 am
  13. joe October 4, 2013 3:32 pm

    “We live in a scientific age. The sciences are viewed as the only real sources of authoritative information. Knowledge derived from other epistemological systems is regarded as having less credibility. The conclusions of philosophy are untestable, and religion is often cynically interpreted as nothing more than superstition and myth. Public policy decisions made upon the basis of scientific recommendations may have economic consequences measured in trillions of dollars. Yet few people realize how unreliable scientific authority can be.”

    http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/10/02/why-climate-science-is-fallible/

Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Comments

More Blog Posts