The Global Warming Boys’ Club
Posted by The Diatribe Guy on July 31, 2008
I’ll start with the quote from This chicken-little story:
“We found that in fish that do have temperature-dependent sex determination [TSD], a rise in water temperature of just 1.5 degrees Celsius can change the male-to-female ratio from 1:1 to 3:1,” says Piferrer, the study’s co-author. In especially sensitive fish, a greater increase can throw the balance even more out of whack. Ospina-Alvarez and Piferrer have found that in the South American pejerrey, for example, an increase of 4 degrees Celsius can result in a population that is 98% male.
What makes these findings especially troubling, of course, is that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that ocean-water temperatures are likely to rise by 1.5 degrees over the course of this century — and they may even go up a few degrees more. “If climate change really does result in a rise of 4 degrees, which is the maximum the IPCC predicts, and if species can’t adapt in time or migrate, then in the most sensitive cases of TSD, we’re looking at extinction,” says Piferrer.
Let’s pay attention, here. This is news. Why? because they have found a dramatic rise in the ratio of male to female fish populations, right? Well, not really. There is a reference to a study that alludes to a rise in one specific population of fish in one specific area of the globe. Of course, we would never jump to conclusions based on anecdotal regional evidence and extrapolate it to global trends, would we? Of course not. More importantly, and you can almost sense the anguish in which they need to toss other potential factors into the equation, there are other potential explanations for the ratio shift. We don’t want to talk about those, though, because it detracts from the horrific nature of global warming.
The paragraphs I quoted are nearly 100% conjecture. It’s all an “if” based on IPCC models that are already failures.
Something stinks here, and it isn’t the fish.
Speaking of models and failures, though, please check out this entry at NRO Planet Gore. I won’t go into detail here, but it’s yet another example of how, with each passing day, it seems like we find yet another factor that isn’t properly considered in climate and geographic models. In this case, it’s land loss in Bangladesh.
The hits (or rather misses) just keep on coming, in the form of observations and facts that are proving very inconvenient for James Hansen’s and the rest of the IPCC gang’s paranoid, hysterical, and angry advocacy for global governance, energy rationing, Kyoto, etc. Today, it is Hansen’s catastrophe posterchild, Bangladesh — which, far from being soon underwater, is actually gaining land mass rather than losing it.
The reason they were off? No consideration of the silting up of rivers. How many of these kinds of things don’t get considered? It seems I’m asking that question at least once a week, as models miss the boat on Greenland’s glaciers or Carbon sinks from storms aren’t properly considered.
In lighter news, though, The UN is going to turn up the temperature gauge to 77 from 72 to combat climate change. I love the quotes in the article.
“It will be like Addis Ababa,” said one crestfallen staff member, referring to the tropical capital of Ethiopia. “The air conditioning didn’t work too well there, either.”
Anwarul Chowdhury, a former U.N. ambassador from Bangladesh, said Tuesday that the Cool U.N. initiative sounds like “tokenism.”
Nevertheless, he said, the extra 5 degrees of heat might give diplomats some compassion for the developing world.
“Some of us grow up in a natural environment,” said Mr. Chowdhury, whose home country is infamous for its heat and humidity. “We do not have the benefits of air conditioning. It is important to understand the realities of living in various parts of the world.”
So, this is part sweaty torture while being mere tokenism, and part social experiment to draw awareness to the struggles of the impoverished. Sounds to me like it’s just kind of stupid.
Speaking of stupid, Al Gore looks to be a big deal at the Democratic National Convention.
Al Gore, long mocked as an exaggerating bore, seems certain to land a lead role at the Democratic National Convention as an internationally recognized defender of the Earth.
Eight years after losing one of the closest White House elections ever, Gore is being embraced by party faithful as the Nobel Peace Prize-winning crusader against global warming, and one of the most successful failed U.S. presidential nominees in history.
Honestly, I can’t figure out if that was supposed to be complimentary to good ol’ Al or if it was a tongue-in-cheek lampooning of the guy. It’s really a hilarious couple paragraphs.
But the real question is, who in the DNC actually thinks this is a good idea? Only the die-hard liberals actually like Al, as I see it. This can only serve to push the moderates to the right. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think I am.