Quick, Pass A Carbon Tax: ‘Climate Change’ Could Expand Range Of Snakes

Today’s story of doom, which could easily be solved if we initiated a carbon tax!

Snakes’ Expanding Habitat Could Bring Their Venom to Surprising Places

Forget the spread of ticks and mosquitos. Climate change could be responsible for bigger bites by drawing poisonous snakes northward into a band along the U.S. and Canadian border, as well as southward into wide swaths of South America.

Using models to predict the ranges of 78 venomous snake species across the Americas, researchers at the University of Kansas’ Biodiversity Institute found snakebite risk areas could increase significantly. By 2050, they could reach as far north as Alberta and Quebec and southward into Argentina and Chile.

If only members of the Cult of Climastrology would stop driving fossil fueled vehicles, this could be solved. All snake bites in areas that the models (snicker) say will happen are on the heads of Warmists who fail to go carbon neutral.

In fact, many snakes, including venomous ones, already reside in these areas, and have for quite some time.

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

11 Responses to “Quick, Pass A Carbon Tax: ‘Climate Change’ Could Expand Range Of Snakes”

  1. My godfather owned a camp up in the Adirondacks on Long Lake, and there was a problem with Copperheads. This was back in the 70’s, when the media was worried about the coming ice age.

  2. Dana says:

    Roads are frequently named for a reason, and I think that I can guess the reason that a short road running out into a field around here is named Copperhead Lane.

  3. JGlanton says:

    Nice example of the use of the word “could” in modern climate “science”. That page has 11 instances of the word “could”. An ethical person could find a better source for scientific information that site.

  4. John says:

    Highly unusual to find copperheads north of the Catskills
    I have done the long lake tipper racquet the canoe route at least 6 times on Oct 12 with family
    Alligators are now within 12 miles of VA maybe already crossing the state line
    Yes Teach popular nedia did talk about global cooling then, but very very few peer reviewed journals predicted that and by the mid 80s Margareet Tgatcher was warning us about AGW. wasn’t that when your Lord Monkeyton was her science advisor?

  5. Jeffery says:

    J,

    “Could” is part of the language of science. Since scientific theories are never really proven, but only supported by evidence, scientists use terms such as “could” or “likely” or “probable”. Only fools and politicians are always certain.

    Are you 100% convinced that global warming is a hoax? Are you willing to admit that global warming “could” be real?

  6. david7134 says:

    First it is snakes, then killer bees, but I really hope the Yankees get fire ants and termites, that would be great.

  7. JGlanton says:

    LOL, “could” is the language of modelers who make specious predictions from code that they wrote. There isn’t a lick of science in this. There isn’t one field observation of snake’s ranges in this. It’s worst-case fantasy modeling.

    Since this study came from UK, I plotted the annual mean temperature for the Lawrence, KS weather station. It’s flat as a board over the last 85 years, and trends slightly down over the last 10. If I was a snake, I wouldn’t be migrating north based on this idiot’s simulation.

  8. Jeffery says:

    j,

    LOL. Why did you (cherry) pick Lawrence KS? Is your point that the Earth is not warming?

    Do you think that regional climates are a factor in the range of flora and fauna? In other words, if the mean temperature of a region increases or decreases for long period would you think it reasonable that the animals might gradually migrate in or out? That the range of local plants might change?

    The only thing you know about science is that it’s too hard for you and your ilk to understand. The right used to be the champions of science and technology – now, not so much.

  9. jl says:

    As said above, always the weasel words: could, may, maybe, might..ect. Or, it might not. All you need to know about this particular drama queen rant is from the article: “using models to predict the ranges…” The same models that have so spectacularly failed in the past?

  10. drowningpuppies says:

    Since scientific theories are never really proven, but only supported by evidence, scientists use terms such as “could” or “likely” or “probable”. Only fools and politicians are always certain.

    -the little guy who exaggerates often and probably accepts the theory of intelligent design

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-study-paper-creator-intelligent-design-plos-one-creatorgate-a6910171.html

Bad Behavior has blocked 8812 access attempts in the last 7 days.