Pestilence and Disease
March 12, 2007 on 3:12 pm | In Global Warming, Main |As our weather trends milder, it’s time for a mercifully brief global warming update. Here are the latest dire predictions of what climate change could mean to the world. Pestilence and disease. Mass starvation. Red ants crawling up your ankles. Sounds like a calamity of Biblical proportions.
And poorer continents like Africa and Asia are disproportionately affected. Who knows what’ll happen? But the “poor-get-screwed” scenario certainly fits the meme of the PC set. Too bad none of us will be around to see if it actually happens.
P.S. For an alternate view, click here.
19 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
dogs and cats living together…..mass hysteria!
Comment by fred — March 12, 2007 #
“Malaria will spread” Gee, why don’t we follow the lead of the poorer continent of AfricaL spray with DDT. 40 years after Rachel Carson’s screed, rational people know that indiscriminate use of any substance creates unintended consequences.
In fact, in Western Africa, the use of DDT to control mosquitos and reduce the threat of malaria has been going on for about 15 years.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 13, 2007 #
I don’t know people….not that much to joke about here….
Al Gore looked alot crazier 8 years ago, so as wild as all of it might seem now…….
Hold on to your property..it might be beachfront property with an average temperature of 80 degrees!
Comment by Marshall Miles — March 13, 2007 #
I agree with Marshall.
Comment by Tom Cowgill — March 13, 2007 #
And in another 500 years the headlines will be all about global cooling. This is simply a warm spell between ice ages. Seriously. It’s a pattern that has been going on since the beginning of this planet, and will continue for the next few billion years, or until the sun expands into a supernova and swallows the galaxy up to the Van Allen belt, whichever comes first.
Comment by Amy — March 13, 2007 #
So, who will start the bidding for the Bridge to Nowhere, located between the towns of North Canaan and Salisbury?
Marshall, you are right, according to the CLS. The deep freeze we just experienced was due to Global Warming, which naturally led to the balmy weather we now experience.
Marshall, while you were on the Sharon Green, resplendent in your Hawaiian shirt, Al Gore’s gurus were talking about running out of oil by the year 2000 and a global cooling taking place at the same time.
The weather cannot be accurately predicted 48 hours in adavance, so why should I believe what will supposedly happen years in the future?
BTW, the chief source of methane gas is the animal and insect kingdom. What do you propose we do to eliminate the prime sources of the “primary” greenhouse gas?
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 13, 2007 #
Terry, as much as I generally enjoy your column and your blog, you are somewhere amongst the flat earth folks on this one.
Comment by Geoff Brown — March 13, 2007 #
It appears that the Flat Earth Society may be alive and well.
The sheer arrogance of the Global Warming Alarmists is pathetic.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009782
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 14, 2007 #
I thought I was the cause of methane gas!!! You insult me Paul!!
Paul, Terry and all….tel your kids to have their kids put on SPF 789 when they go out in the future!!!!
Comment by Marshall Miles — March 14, 2007 #
Geoff,
You didn’t know the earth was flat? Didn’t you get the memo? Actually, you are being kind. Others have compared me to a right-wing preacher who doesn’t believe in evolution, or (get this) a Holocaust denier!
Unfortunately, it’s hard for many people to take global warming seriously when its leaders don’t. They continue to fly around in private jets, consume more electricity than I could ever dream of, and chug around in hybrid limos. How much fossil fuel was burned to get all those celebs to the Academy Awards so that they could lecture us on our gluttony? They do for global warming what big-spending, draft-dodging George W. Bush does for conservatism. Hypocrisy breeds cynicism.
Marshall,
Tell Mike the gas emitted is on Sunday mornings. But please, no more ballet clips when Straight Talk resumes its wall-to-wall Region 1 budget coverage. It makes Mike seem warm and fuzzy — which might hurt his image.
Comment by Terry — March 14, 2007 #
I thought I was watching the M&M remake of Spys Like Us.
Terry, I do not take gobal warming seriously. IF people take the time to read and consider the opposing information, the conclusion is not as cut and dried as the CLS folks would have us believe. Algoreism hypocrisy is nothing new, and is to be expected.
My belief is akin to yours. The CLS folks want us all to live as if we were in Darfur. So would they, only they would live like the rulers of the country. Look at the OPEC countries. Obviously the carbon footprint of the majority of natives is miminal at best. However, the aristocracy more than make up for it.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 15, 2007 #
Thanks to James Taranto, March 14, 2007.
A bit moe humours look at the Algoreism Effect:
‘An Over-Representation of Factual Presentations’
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009785
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 15, 2007 #
Remember: cigarette companies once said smoking wasn’t dangerous, too
Comment by William — March 15, 2007 #
Terry,
In response to your comment about our leaders not taking global warming seriously….
Although legislative policies don’t show it by any means, it is rumored that George W. has one of the most environmentally friendly estates in the country.
While he may be concerned about the environment he certainly has the interests of his cronies in industry in mind.
Comment by James Clark — March 15, 2007 #
Here’s a hopeful sign: Capitalism may save us after all.
The New York Times reports that venture capitalists and Silcion Valley sees riches in clean energy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/technology/14valley.html?em&ex=1174104000&en=2814ff336294ecdb&ei=5087%0A
Comment by William — March 15, 2007 #
William,
I’ve often thought there was money to be made in clean power and I’m glad the Silicon folks have latched onto something to take the place of the burst tech bubble.
The problem is clean energy projects often face opposition (e.g. the Cape wind project, new hydro dams, nuclear) from the very people (e.g. Robt. Kennedy Jr) who decry our overuse of fossil fuels.
At a certain point we have stop worrying about how the windmills will look or whether they will slice up some birds. Getting our sorry asses out of the embrace of the corrupt Saudis is far more important.
No matter what one thinks of global warming, I think we can all agree that reducing air pollution is an important goal.
Comment by Terry — March 15, 2007 #
I live on Cape Cod and am somewhat familiar with the Cape wind project. I favor wind energy and could be in favor with the present proposed location on Horseshoe Shoals, but do not support the Cape wind project. It reeks of present day GOP capitalism, no-bid contracts awarded to wealthy cronies and pile on the taxpayer subsidies. If its a good project, why not investigate to find the best location and open it to bidders?
Do we really have the dilemma of sliced birds vs no windmills? I think its a false one. Are we not technologically talented enough to design wind power that does not devour our feathered friends?
Comment by Tom Cowgill — March 16, 2007 #
Perhaps, but it would be interesting to see whether the environmentalists who opposed the Cape project would have supported it if it were not an example of what you call “present day GOP capitalism.” I don’t see how competitive bidding and more private capital would change their concerns about the viewshed and wildlife.
As for your second question, I don’t know if it’s a false dilemma about the birds. If the technology exists, I am not aware of it. Good question for someone who knows.
Comment by Terry — March 16, 2007 #
Terry tht is the crux of the issue. The greenies want their clean power, but ic cannot despoil any of their beloved “pristine environment.” Although Tom raises another problem: The project is supported by those evil capitalist republicans. Screw global warming, it’s moe important to rail against “them.”
The government subsidies are supposedly necessary to make the project economically viable. That alone shoots down capitalism. IF windpower worked, it would attract capitalists looking to make lots of bucks. Since it does not work as promised, at present, it is a LOSER financially. The greenies and others have become so accustomed to Uncle Sugar supporting their ideas, it is a natural progression. I think the common word is PORK.
Regarding birds, the greatest threat to their existence? House Cats. Ask HSUS, PETA, and the other “animal rights” groups. They will all give the same answer. BTW, my 3 cats prefer gield mice and such. I think they are afraid of heights.
This recent global warming blizzard reminded me of a column concerning the costs of nannyism, basically nothing to the supporters. One example was this:
You are rabidly anti-smoking. You are driving in a blizzard and your car breaks down. After a few hours of wind and snow, a car finally approaches. The driver offers assistance. You smell the smoke reeking from him. He explains that he smokes very heavily, and will do so during your journey. Will you accept the ride? At that point, the rubber meets the road. What cost will you bear personally? When the advocates of wind power accept these costs, perhaps it will move forward and become economically viable.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — March 17, 2007 #