We’re doomed, because the climate should always stay exactly the same, just like it did till 1988 when CO2 passed 350ppm
(Climate Progress) It’s known as “blue gold†and it has been cultivated in Provence, France since the Middle Ages. But now, a tiny bacteria-infected cicada is laying waste to a crop which is as iconically tied to Provence as lobsters are to Maine, or maple syrup is to Vermont — lavender. Researchers studying the lavender worry that the problem will only get worse as climate change leads to hotter and drier summers in Provence, ideal conditions for the spread of the pest.
Unlike it’s larger cousin the cicada, which is loud but harmless, the cicadelle, or leafhopper in English, attacks lavender plants in two ways. Cicadelle larva feast on lavender roots all winter long and then the adults attack the leaves in the spring and early summer. Even more destructive, however, is a micro-bacteria called stolbur phytoplasma, carried by the hungry insects that blocks the plants’ sap canals, causing the plant’s inevitable decline
Even if a means of controlling the pest is developed in time, the march of climate change will likely force lavender cultivation to move northwards, perhaps out of Provence altogether.
Wait, you want to control pest? Why are you messing with Mother Nature? Really, though, what’s this about?
(Guardian) Now locals, whose livelihoods depend on the plants, are appealing for funds to save the lavender that has been produced in the region since the Middle Ages.
Money. The climate is always changing, so people are using the “climate change” scare to get some cool cash. Back to Climate Progress
Provence is far from the only flower-growing region in the world to face new climate challenges. Kenya is the biggest exporter of cut roses to the European Union, responsible for 38 percent of the market share. In 2012, Kenya exported a total of 123, 511 tons of flowers, worth $500 million. But a long-standing drought in Kenya is forcing flower growers to turn to precious and scarce lake resources to keep their valuable crops alive.
In the U.S. Northwest, the problem is too much water. The Snoqualmie Valley near Seattle, where lilies, gladiolas and dahlias thrive, is increasingly stressed by wet weather and floods — 23 since 2006 alone. In 2009, the Snoqualmie River crested at 62 feet, eight feet above flood stage, breaking the previous record set in 2006 when the river crested at 61 feet. Most flower growing operations in the valley are small, family farms that are least able to weather the financial losses.
So, wet and dry are Bad. Yup. Cult.
You make political arguments (and logically flawed ones, at that) rather than scientific. Why is that? You ridicule and mock others with problems. Why is that? Perhaps if you made your living growing and selling lavender you would be more sympathetic.
The argument made by climate realists is not that the climate never changes but rather that human-induced major and rapid climate change will likely have negative consequences on human civilization. Evidence supporting the theory of human-caused global warming is overwhelming so it’s understandable that those that oppose finding solutions avoid making scientific arguments.
You argue that the current round of global warming is “natural”, but you refuse to define what you mean by “natural”. Why is that?
You claim that the climate is always changing. When was the last time that the average surface temperature increased this much, this rapidly?
Of course, you argue that the current round of global warming is faster than what one would call “natural.”
Why is it that you base your claim on something that you do not know based upon repeatedly saying that you do not understand “natural?”
“Logically flawed” = anything that shows liberals and warmists are wrong.
Poor ignorant gumpy,
By all means, show me where I’m wrong. I understand natural to mean “not man-made” – all I ask is for you and yours to explain what “natural” processes are causing the Earth to warm rapidly. If your definition of natural means without cause, then you are wrong.
Jeffy,
I just want to make sure that I understand your point.
You demand a definition of “natural” even though you understand its meaning and then fail to understand the effects.
That seems to be what you are saying.
Once again, the lack of logic in your posts is astounding.
Poor Jeffery. “Rapid climate change will likely have negative consequences…” Wait- “Likely”? You have to sure of that, son, before you go changing the world’s energy supply. But thanks for acknowledging what we already knew. Is it 10% likely? 50%likely? You don’t know anything, do you? “What natural processes are causing the earth to warm rapidly?” The earth isn’t warming rapidly. The question is: The climateers are looking at what, a 60- 70 year time span? Can you tell me how rapidly the earth warmed, or cooled in all the 60 -70 year time spans the earth has experienced in the last 4.5 billion years? We’re waiting.
jeff,
First, DDT would like kill the insect. But we can’t use DDT due to a book of fiction that liberals freaked out over and thus banned the substance. This resulted in the deaths of millions in Africa. Just one instance of liberal hysteria that went bad. Now, as to global warming, most of us don’t really know if the globe is warming as we have not been allowed to see the data sets without substantial modification. Then there is the fact that 50% of climate scientist have become doubters. Then there is the fact that no consideration has been given to other things that cause climate change, such as sun activity. Then there is the fact that the same people that promote this are the same lying scum such as our great president. Then, there is the fact that efforts to quail human activity that would effect warming would only reduce the rate of warming by 3% (according to liberal media) and at the same time kill what is left of our destroyed economy. Then there is the fact that we don’t have a real substitute for fossil fuels, which are the most efficient in producing energy. Then there is the fact that the much touted CO2 tax and credits are nothing more than an effort at establishing global government and control (no that is not conspiracy thinking, just look at who policy has been altered in South America using these controls). So, we are not really concerned with the climate change as climate always changes on the earth and we have periods of intense heat and intense cold and we really can not alter these things, only adapt. For that matter, you are a CO2 producing unit, why don’t you save the earth by stopping your production of this substance?
sigh. J’s incessant whining, rambling, and incoherence is getting tiring.
And people’s whining that the climate should stay static is maddening.
jl,
I’m not your son, and the likelihood of catastrophic climate change is 95%. To wait until we’re 100% certain is too late.
What’s the likelihood of a house fire? Perhaps 0.1%? Yet, people still by homeowners insurance.
david,
All that you typed was either false, dumb or mean-spirited.
DDT was banned in the US, but not in Africa. That millions died in Africa from malaria because of a partial ban of DDT in the US is a right-wing myth.
The data on global warming is freely available.
50% of climate researchers do not doubt global warming.
Other potential causes of global warming have been evaluated and rejected from lack of evidence. What is your hypothesis for why the Earth is warming now?
Slowing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions will not destroy the economy.
As much as conservatives wish their antagonists would die or commit suicide, CO2 production by human respiration is not a significant contributor to greenhouse gases. You’ll just have to wish liberals die because you’re horrible and frustrated.
Jeff,
I don’t need a hypothesis for why the earth is warming, I only have to look at the history and see similar patterns. I am afraid that you are playing the liberal game of stating a fact, whether true of not, and expecting everyone to disapprove it. Science does not work that way, you have to prove your theory and no one has done that. I am afraid it is you that is spouting liberal talking points and everyone of yours is not right. If we cut back on our economy, the vacuum will be replaced by efforts of the Chinese and Russians and they really don’t give a flip about your concerns for CO2. For that matter, the Indians, who are extremely smart, discount all your points.
david,
Tell me the last time in human civilization that the average global temperature shot up 2 or 3 C in 200 yrs? And even if it had, what does that have to do with the current bout of global warming caused by the greenhouse effect from man’s generation of CO2?
We “cut back on our economy” more in 2008 than any proposal on climate change would and the Chinese and Russians didn’t replace our vacuum (whatever you mean by that).
The smart Indians discount all my points? By all means, please go on…
“95% certain of catastrophic damage” That’s a good one, considering that all the climateers “predictions” are based on negative adaptability, which of course would be 100% false . Tell me, are the supposed “50 million climate refugees” part of the catastrophe? Oh, wait, that didn’t happen. Or the ” no more snow in England? Wait, that did’t happen either. “What’s the likely hood of a house fire…” House fires are real- there’s that pesky data again. AGW is not real. “Tell me the last time the temps shot up….in human civilization..?” We don’t have specific temperature records of those kinds of things past about 150 years or so. So your 2 or 3c is irrelevant. Do you know what happened in all the other 200 year time spans in history? No, you don’t which is obviously why you never answer the question. “I’m not your son.” No, you’re not. It was obviously meant in a “you have a lot more to learn, son” way. Well, obvious to most people. Keep trying Jeffery.