Here We Go: “Climate Change” To Shift Red Wine Production Very Far To The North

Facts: a .08C increase in global temperatures since 1997. A miniscule .28F from 1990-2012. Varying data collections which show warming has paused anywhere from 15-19 years. Warmists who think this is all so dire that they refuse to give up their own fossil fueled lifestyles and refuse to go carbon neutral. Their cult is dying around them. Their attempts at science are continuously beaten by real science. What to do? More scary prognostications!

(Sydney Morning Herald) In 50 years, wines from Bordeaux and Tuscany will be insipid. Instead, we’ll all be drinking Montana merlots and Chinese clarets.

That, at any rate, is the implication of a paper published online this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which estimates that anywhere from 19 to 73 per cent of the land suitable for wine-growing in today’s major wine regions will be lost to climate change by 2050. (The wide variance reflects the great uncertainty in climate prediction models.) As vineyards in Spain, Italy, and southern France wither, colder regions that are inhospitable today will be poised to take their place as the new grands crus.

If your prediction models predict a variance of 19 to 73 percent, your models stink and are based on wishful thinking, not science. We’re still waiting for the Warmists to tell us exactly what the optimum temperature for the Earth should be. Furthermore, Warmists are like Flat Earthers, in that they expect everything to always stay the same.

There’s just one catch, according to the study. Many of those new wine regions coincide with important habitat for species such as the gray wolf, the pronghorn, the grizzly bear, and in China’s case, the panda.

The most promising new region of all, according to lead author Lee Hannah of the non-profit organisation Conservation International, may be the area north of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. That would put it directly in the path of a conservation initiative designed to connect Yellowstone to the Yukon. It’s that very type of wildlife corridor that scientists say may be needed to allow animals such as grizzly bears to respond to climate change themselves. “Vineyards would be a major impediment to this connectivity,” Hannah writes in a blog post about the study. “They provide poor habitat for wildlife, and would probably have to be fenced to avoid bears snacking on the grapes.”

And, there we go, the New Climate Deniers have linked “climate change” with conservation in an attempt to ramp up the scary prognostications from a 6 to a 9. During the previous warm period they were growing wine, good ones, in England. During the Little Ice Age wine grape production moved further south. But, seriously, all the way up to Wyoming and Montana? This is hysteria and cultish behavior, not science. The Carbon Sense Coalition pulls a great quote from H.L. Menken which perfectly encapsulates the New Climate Deniers

“The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable.”

Warmists are never willing to abandon their ideas: they’re only willing to stretch them so that no matter what happens, it is the fault of Mankind.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Here We Go: “Climate Change” To Shift Red Wine Production Very Far To The North”

  1. john says:

    more and more people are looking at the climate truthers as just being silly. The same people who deny climate change are the same ones who thought Romney was going to win. Teach the tide has turned on this issue, just like it did on gays in the military, gay marriage, the wars in iraq and Afghanistan, immigration: can you see a pattern here? The conservatives are losing on all fronts.

  2. You’ve been “spreading awareness” on this subject since the late 1980’s, and at this point y’all look like a bunch of tin foil hat wearing nutjobs.

  3. Sorry john, but the number of people who believe in AGW has dropped from 57% to 47%. That is not the direction you claim it to be going.

    Facts to liberals are like garlic to vampires.

  4. Well, at least vampires understand the definition of what “facts” means. Liberals are unclear as to the concept.

  5. Friday morning links…

    Steyn: The Unfinished Revolution in the UK Re Maggie: The Silence of the Feminists Amherst College Ignores Racially Motivated Prank Against White Male Students Louvre Workers Walk Off Job Over Increasing Problem Of Pickpockets At The Museum Five ‘T…

  6. Coconutdog says:

    Fuck the grizzly bears.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    Comment by Coconutdog

    Dear Penthouse,

    I never thought this would happen to me, but one day as I was walking through the woods….

  8. Gumball_Brains says:

    lol GC and CD. At least the bears will be happy until they meet their doom in the “vineyards of death”

    “Vineyards would be a major impediment to this connectivity,” Hannah writes in a blog post about the study. “They provide poor habitat for wildlife, and would probably have to be fenced to avoid bears snacking on the grapes.”

    Damn, if we could have only seen the future and taught these wild bears to walk like we did with circus bears. They then could have saved themselves. Now, they’ll go extinct because of the fast moving climate change that will wipe them out in 200 years. They’ll never see it coming.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10015 access attempts in the last 7 days.