Pirate's Cove

It’s almost like researchers know that they have to put ‘climate change’ in all their papers to get funded and noticed nowadays

Climate Change Kills the Mood: Economists Warn of Less Sex on a Warmer Planet
And fewer babies would be bad news.

Wait, I thought babies were bad for ‘climate change’? We’ve been told by Warmists to have fewer kids to save the planet. And that babies and kids are also bad because they use up too many resources.

Climate change has been blamed for many things over the years. Never, until now, has anyone thought it was possible to see it as a kind of contraceptive.

Hot weather leads to diminished “coital frequency,” according to a new working paper put out by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Three economists studied 80 years of U.S. fertility and temperature data and found that when it’s hotter than 80 degrees F, a large decline in births follows within 10 months. Would-be parents tend not to make up for lost time in subsequent, cooler months.

An extra “hot day” (the economists use quotation marks with the phrase) leads to a 0.4 percent drop in birth rates nine months later, or  1,165 fewer deliveries across the U.S. A rebound in subsequent months makes up just 32 percent of the gap.

Strange: Third World Nations in higher temperature zones don’t seem to have a problem popping out kids. Might this be more of a 1st World Issue, where people get out and about on warm days, having fun, going to the beach, doing all sorts of things that keep them from having unprotected sex? Might it have something to do with the higher use of contraception in the 1st World? No, no, it must be anthropogenic climate change! It’s foolish to think that there could other causes! Climate change!!!!!!!!

Just because there are fewer pregnancies doesn’t mean there is less sex.

The paper’s title is about as lascivious as the National Bureau of Economic Research gets: “Maybe Next Month? Temperature Shocks, Climate Change, and Dynamic Adjustments in Birth Rates.” The researchers assume that climate change will proceed according to the most severe scenarios, with no substantial efforts to reduce emissions. The scenario they use projects that from 2070 to 2099, the U.S. may have 64 more days above 80F than in the baseline period from 1990 to 2002, which had 31. The result? The U.S. may see a 2.6 percent decline in its birth rate, or 107,000 fewer deliveries a year.

Of course, 95% of the models failed to predict the Pause, which, depending on the data set you look at, shows no or statistically insignificant warming anywhere from 12-26 years. What they are assuming is that CO2 from Mankind is the control nob, and they’ve created a causal relationship without apparently looking at other causes. Because ‘climate change’. And funding. And the need to link everything to climate change in a cultish pseudo-religious manner.