Warmists were a little late with their doomsaying on ‘climate change’ while using Halloween as a prop, but, hey, better late than never
Just in Time for Halloween, Scientists Are Preparing for a Vampire Bat Invasion in the U.S.
Tis the season … for stockpiling copious amounts of garlic, crosses and holy water to fight vampires. Vampire bats, to be specific.
OK, maybe that’s just in the movies, but according to Popular Science, vampire bats may soon swarm the United States in droves unseen since 5,000-plus years ago. The likely cause? Climate change.
Oh, wait, what’s this?
Fossils found in California, Florida, Texas and Arizona (among other states), dating back to approximately 5,000 to 30,000 years ago, indicate that the vampire bat once lived in the U.S. when it was a much warmer place. The species is currently found throughout Mexico, Central America and South America, but research shows that the Desmodus rotundus population is on the rise, pushing into new territory in both North and South America. The bats may bring new variants of rabies along with them.
So, the rest of the article likes to blamestorm Mankind for rising temps, but, um, what caused this previously? Nature, you say? Huh. Of course, Warmists have their anti-science talking points to tell us why, showing that they are part of a cult.
Meanwhile, the Environmental Defense Fund goes on to tell us about the 5 scariest aspects of ‘climate change’, which is the real Halloween horror story or something. Still no actual scientific proof of being mostly/solely caused by Mankind.
Grist has the Halloween of the future, and says you’re not going to like it.
The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner is recommending you reuse your Halloween pumpkins to stop food waste to stop Hotcoldwetdry. You know, the ones that have been sitting outside for a week or two. Yuck.
The Union of Concerned (Climahysterical) Scientists says the spookiest costume of 2017 is the fossil fuel company executive.
Yeah, that one deserved a facepalm.
Finally, Yale Climate Connections does something you know I despise, namely, interjecting Hotcoldwetdry into real environmental issues. The headline is A common ingredient in Halloween candy is contributing to climate change. Of course, this is also a way for Warmists to attempt to ruin Halloween. What it’s about is the use of palm oil. I’ve noted many times that the creation of palm oil farms has led to clearcutting forests and jungles, and, beyond the normal loss of animals, birds, lizards, etc, there is the intentional slaughter of animals like orangutans. So, yes, palm oil is a real environmental issue.
TEACH typed:
Thank you for asking. Actually, scientists do not deny that the Earth has warmed previously, e.g., during the first 5000 years of the Holocene, and in previous interglacial periods during the past 800,000 years. It’s just that the physical processes triggering those rather slow-to-develop warming periods were based on systematic “wobbles” in the Earth’s orbit, and changes in axial tilt. The cause of this recent rapid warming is greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere. Scientists predict the current interglacial period (the Holocene) could extend another 50,000 years before the next glacial period (ice age).
What would you recognize as scientific proof that greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to warm now?
Unfortunately for alarmists, there no proof to differentiate between natural warming and AGW warming. That tied with all the examples of faulty “temperatures adjustments†leaves this question far from settled.
j,
What evidence would persuade you that CO2 is causing the Earth to warm now?
You keep complaining there is no proof. What would that proof look like?
Well, if it convinces a shithead like you, it’s probably not up to snuff…
boB,
Can you tell us what evidence you would find persuasive? Neither TEACH nor j nor a dozen other commenters seem to know what evidence they would find persuasive.
If you don’t know what evidence you’re looking for, how would you know when it’s presented?
There is no empirical evidence that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.
None.
For starters, and I could go on and on, but papers such as these.
http://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/#sthash.juH1oxtC.dpbs A doubling of CO 2 will cause at the most a .5 degree C change in temp
There are hundreds of scientific papers attempting to calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2. The so-called “skeptic”, Gosselin, has selected several in the low range to support his personal bias. Some other papers estimate the sensitivity to be 10C! The consensus range is 1.5-4.5C with a doubling of CO2, with 3C being where most cluster.
Many of the papers Gosselin cited (ignoring the Idso “papers”) are not studies at all but re-reviews of actual studies coupled with doses of opinion. Most are computer models ignoring any feedback mechanism.
Fianlly, note well, that during this period where CO2 has increased a mere 40% (not doubling at all), the Earth has warmed over 1 C.
Do you believe that this handful of “studies” where computer models show low sensitivity invalidate the hundreds that predict greater sensitivity?
On top of hundreds of articles like this: https://realclimatescience.com/100-predictable-fraud-from-government-climate-scientists/
And this one is always amusing. Record temps where there’s no thermometers. Why would one trust NOAA. Also not the globe graphic- all areas in grey have no temp daya. Almost none in Greenland or Antarctica, and little in S.A. and Africa. But yet they can tell us the earth’s temp to within .1 degree or less? Uh, nohttps://realclimatescience.com/2017/10/the-wildly-fraudulent-noaa-climate-extremes-index/
Sorry for the spelling-“also note the globe graphic…†“no temp dataâ€
Bad link. https://realclimatescience.com/2017/10/the-wildly-fraudulent-noaa-climate-extremes-index/