Report: Hotcoldwetdry May Pose Threat To Economic Growth

Late morning coffee snorters edition, where that pesky word “may” crops up again

(CNN) Nearly a third of the world’s economic output will come from countries facing “high” to “extreme” risks from the impacts of climate change within 12 years, according to a new report.

The Climate Change Vulnerability Index, an annual report produced by UK-based risk analysis firm Maplecroft, found that climate change “may pose a serious obstacle to sustainable economic growth in the world’s most commercially important cities.”

When Warmists start throwing around the word “may” (or might, could, etc), you know you’re in for a whopper of a fable. In this case, saying Bad Weather from “climate change” may cause Bad Things to happen, especially within the economies of 3rd World Shitholes developing nations which never seem to develop.

It said the combined GDP of the 67 countries classed as facing “high” or “extreme” risks was projected to nearly triple from $15 trillion to $44 trillion by 2025 — meaning nearly a third of the global economy would be coming under increasing threat from extreme climate-related events. It projected the population of those countries — currently estimated at more than 4.5 billion — could exceed 5 billion by 2025.

So, wait, GDP is supposed to “nearly triple” during “climate change” while also being threatened? I’ll admit, I’m kinda bad about editing posts prior to posting (especially headlines), but, then, I don’t get paid for this. People who write for, say, CNN, do. And typically have an editor who reads the article first.

Notice at the and of that paragraph that the writer seems a bit upset about population growth in these countries. Kinda racists, wouldn’t you say?

The greatest growth in economic activity, technology, health, and so many other things has occurred during the Modern Warm Period. Also, during previous warm periods, which were typically warmer than today, Mankind did a whole lot better than during cool periods, one of which was called The Dark Ages. In fact, things are so great that Warmists are able to whine about Bad Weather and “climate change” and stuff instead of scrambling just to survive.

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 “Report: Hotcoldwetdry May Pose Threat To Economic Growth”

  1. Jeffery says:

    “The greatest growth in economic activity, technology, health, and so many other things has occurred during the Modern Warm Period.”

    The total evolution of human civilization occurred during this warm period, within a temperature range of 0.6 degrees C.

    “Also, during previous warm periods, which were typically warmer than today, Mankind did a whole lot better than during cool periods, one of which was called The Dark Ages.”

    Since the beginnings of human civilizations the Earth has not been warmer than now. The medieval warm period was at least 0.4 C cooler than today – the little ice age only about 0.8 C cooler than now. The 2nd warmest period of the entire Holocene was from about 8000 BCE to 4000 BCE, about 0.2 C cooler than now and much colder than what we’ll see in 2100. The entire temperature range of the Holocene (until now) was 0.6 C. We may add another 2-3 C by 2100. The think this kind of massive rearrangement of the atmosphere will have little effect is dumb.

    “In fact, things are so great that Warmists are able to whine about Bad Weather and “climate change” and stuff instead of scrambling just to survive.”

    Since things are so great now (and if you think that’s just because of good climate, you’re nuts) why would you wish to add another 2 or 3 degrees C? You won’t pay for it but your descendants will.

  2. jl says:

    “We may add another 2-3 C by 2100.” Or we may not. “You won’t pay for it but your descendants will.” Proof, please? So you think the climateers way of “You pay now, your descendants will pay even more” is better? Sorry, due back on planet earth now.

  3. Jeffery says:

    jl,

    There is no “proof” that the mean global surface temperature will rise 2-3 C by 2100. There is only the probability that the Earth will continue to warm. If we are lucky it will only be 2-3 C. And there is no reason to expect the warming to end there.

    If you’re interested in learning more about the economics of global warming see:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  4. gitarcarver says:

    For those of you who don’t want to click on Jeffy’s NY Times article, it is an opinion piece by Paul Krugman.

    If it weren’t so sad it would be funny.

  5. Jeffery says:

    If you’re interested in learning more about the economics of global warming see:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    If not, continue to read only this blog. WT’s own smithers, Gittyup, would prefer you not read an article by a Nobel prize winning economist because of what you might learn or consider. He implies that informed opinion is somehow inferior to uninformed opinion.

    If it weren’t so sad it would be… sorry, it’s just sad.

    Gittyup: I know you prefer to stay ignorant on the issues and just lash out in the darkness, but would you opine regarding Krugman’s economic analysis of the costs of reducing CO2 emissions vs the costs of doing nothing?

    Denialists talk vaguely about how limiting CO2 emissions will wreck the global economy yet the best estimates by economists who study such things (rather than pundits who spew about such things) suggest otherwise.

    Read the article – you don’t have to accept any conclusions – and begin to consider the potential economic impacts of AGW and its remediation.

  6. Jl says:

    “There is the probability that the earth will continue to warm.” Yes, and it’s probable that it may cool, also. Both of these have been going on for 4 billion years. What you say means nothing out of the ordinary. “Kurgan, a Nobel prize winning economist.” You mean the NYT guy who is debunked regularly? And didn’t they give that prize to another who didn’t deserve named Obama? Anyway, what you say is all a moot point because there’s no proof man is causing this CO2 rise. CO2 rise have tended to follow temps rising, not the other way around. Instead of listening to Krugman you should find someone to teach you how to debate.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    Oh Jeffy, once again you lash out making things up that people never said.

    Krugman has a Nobel Prize. Yay. He therefore takes his place amongst other “giants” such as Yassir Arafat, Al Gore, and Barack Obama.

    Despite your persistent whining about those who disagree with you, my beef with Klugman isn’t that he won a Noble Prize, but that is he wrong on many subjects. He was wrong on the stimulus package, he was wrong on lauding the green efforts in Germany, Spain and England. He was wrong on the collapse of the Euro. He was wrong on austerity in foreign countries.

    But I suspect that you like him because like you, he doesn’t have the guts or morals to admit when he is wrong. He just keeps bashing those who disagree with him which is what you do.

    Finally Jeffy, for the sake of us all, please take remedial reading course. It is sad to see a grown man with such poor reading skills.

  8. Covered_by_Gumballs says:

    J said:
    There is no “proof” that the mean global surface temperature will rise 2-3 C by 2100.

    Glad to have you admit it. Thus, you are using fakery to try and force a massive economic downturn in order to satisfy your fear. Suck it up and live a life like the rest of us. You may not want to contribute to this life, but some of us do. Leave us alone to do so.

    There is only the probability that the Earth will continue to warm.

    And what is that probability? 1%? 25? 70%? or could it be ZERO% since the models that your cult worships has yet to be right over the last 30 years?

    If we are lucky it will only be 2-3 C. And there is no reason to expect the warming to end there.

    You just admitted\recognized that you have no proof that our world will warm, that a trendline proves nothing, that our current trend is not within the trendline set over 30 years ago, that our past trendlines have shown all directionality, and yet you have the gall to keep pushing 2-3C meme.

    The trendline is currently flat, but you think it will be worse than the non-trendline you think is there… but have no proof of. can you not see that this thinking is insanity?

    Can you not see how we who view the world as a great massive changing, altering, adjusting, vast ecosystem can call you and your failed belief system a cult?

Bad Behavior has blocked 6403 access attempts in the last 7 days.