City Known For Witch Hunts Is Taking On ‘Climate Change’ or Something

The Cult of Climastrology has long been linked to witches. First, they act like witches in thinking that dancing around (and taxing Everyone Else) will change the weather. Second, and more important, they act like witch hunters, look to take an ounce of flesh from those they deem witches, otherwise known as “skeptics.” They’ve been involved in numerous hunts, such as going after Exxon Mobile. Heck, they’ve even claimed the original medieval witch hunts were influenced by climate change. If only those wild women hadn’t been driving SUVs in the mid-1500’s.

Anyhow, Salem Mayor Kimberly Driscoll and Jesse Mermell, president for the Alliance For Business Leadership, are uber concerned

Salem is taking on climate change
For coastal cities, it’s a matter of urgency

THE MORE THINGS change, the more they stay the same. For centuries now the economic health of the city of Salem has been tied to the ocean.

In the immediate aftermath of the American Revolution and into the 1800s, ships from Salem took to the seas and returned with tea, spices, and silks that turned the port community into the wealthiest city per capita in the new nation. Later, Salem Harbor became home to a major coal depot, where ships dropped off coal on its way to fuel regional factories and, later, a large coal-powered power plant on the waterfront itself. Much has changed with the city today, but the ocean remains central to its economic prosperity. In this day and age that can only mean one thing: For Salem to survive and thrive, we must tackle the issue of climate change.

Modern-day Salem is a bustling city on the rise. Between tourism, health care, and higher education, the city’s economy has transformed from the days of importing tea from China. But it will never move on from its connection to the ocean. With a new natural gas power plant opening up acres of waterfront land, Salem has the opportunity to sustainably develop an area that will link oceanfront resources to economic development.

It seems tourism from the long ago witch hunts plays pretty big, but, whatever

With this vital opportunity looming, addressing climate change is an economic imperative for Salem. The city’s 2014 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan outlines serious challenges that may be in store for the coastal community by 2050: a sea level rise of more than four feet, storm surges of more than 13 feet by the year 2100, a 30 percent increase in the likelihood of a “100-year storm,” and a 157 percent increase in the number of days over 90 degrees.

Interesting. According to actual factual data from the closest measuring station in Boston, we learn “The mean sea level trend is 2.79 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.16 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1921 to 2015 which is equivalent to a change of 0.92 feet in 100 years.” So, the scaremongering talking points is off by quite a bit, a factor of over 8.

BTW, did they realize that natural gas is a big no-no for the Cult of Climastrology?

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

7 Responses to “City Known For Witch Hunts Is Taking On ‘Climate Change’ or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    If only those wild women hadn’t been driving SUVs in the mid-1500’s.

    You do realize that climate change can result from both natural and man-made causes, right? The current period of warming is caused by man-made CO2 pollution.

    Of course, in medieval Europe they had no knowledge of Milankovich cycles, axial tilt, albedo, insolation or the AMOC instead inventing explanations, blaming the weakest amongst them.

    You assume a linear function for sea level increase. Let’s all hope you’re right, knowing that experts disagree with your “scientific” findings. But experts-smexperts, we’re all experts in the age of the interwebs! One would be daft to spend 10 years studying when you can Google and type something.

    Conversion from coal-based power to natural gas-based power is considered a step in the right direction, in that natural gas is a more efficient source than coal, but the objective is to cut CO2 production even more (unless you refuse to believe that CO2 causes warming).

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Yep, funds for fighting climate change include dredging for a deep water port to accommodate cruise ships.

    Heh! Look at that sea arising, folks.

  3. Saturday morning links

    Outside Truckee, big rig driver handles jackknifed big rig like a boss (with video) SJWs Claim Sandwich Invented in U.S. Is Being Culturally Appropriated by Americans We need these people for daily humor A pied a terre: Bezos buys largest house in

  4. lectrolink says:

    “The current period of warming is caused by man-made CO2 pollution.”

    Your fact-free assertion is merely the isignia of your devoted adherence to the warmist religion. I’m not a scientist, and I doubt you are either, despite your proclivity to toss around 50 cent ‘sciency’ words. But common sense and an interest in finding truth tells us a few things:

    CO2 is a trace gas that has much less ability to trap heat in our atmosphere than water vapor or methane, both of which are far greater in atmospheric concentration. Please disabuse yourself of the simplistic notion that dialing CO2 up or down will force temperature up or down. Ice core data shows us that CO2 change follows temperature change, not the other way around.

    CO2, far from being a pollutant, is the gas of life. Greenhouses typically keep a level of CO2 above 1000PPM, far above atmospheric levels to promote rapid growth and plant health. A warmer world with more CO2 would be a blessing, with more arable land and better crop yields.

    Each successive doubling of CO2 affects temperature rise only half as much; there are natural brakes for the amount of atmospheric CO2.

    From what I can gather from my reading, much/most of the recent warming (very small amount) is due to ENSO (El Nino) and sun activity and cloud cover variations, phenomena that scientists understand little about. There are also many other factors that influence climate, few of which make their way into climate models, which, by the way, have all been proven to be way off (far more warm) than observational reality.

    Since climate science has become so politicized, it is useful to observe which side has a habit of hiding or not releasing their underlying data, which side has more grant money available (and greater dependence on that money), which side tries to shut down debate by claiming ‘the science is settled.’ All of that falls on the warmistas. President Trump will soon be stomping on the remaining dying embers of this ridiculous hoax.

  5. You assume a linear function for sea level increase.

    No, the hard data taken over a period of almost 100 years does. See link provided which comes from NOAA.

    Let’s all hope you’re right, knowing that experts disagree with your “scientific” findings.

    Not mine. NOAA providing actual hard data. The experts can disagree all they want, but, they’re disagreeing with the long term accumulation of real world data.

    But experts-smexperts, we’re all experts in the age of the interwebs! One would be daft to spend 10 years studying when you can Google and type something.

    Or, we could look at the actual data set which comes from NOAA and is for almost 100 years, and shows a nice linear increase with no acceleration. Or, are you simply assuming that sea rise will suddenly jump up? Please show the data.

    Oh, and nice ad hominum, meant to deflect from the fact that you have no supporting data to contradict the real world data.

  6. Jeffery says:

    lectrolink,

    Thanks for the insults. Your assertions are false, i.e., not consistent with the evidence. These objections have been repeatedly refuted over the years.

    Please disabuse yourself of the simplistic notion that dialing CO2 up or down will force temperature up or down.

    Unfortunately for scientifically illiterates such as yourself (I can insult too!) you ignore the facts. Do you think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas at all? The half-life of water vapor in the atmosphere is short, and changes constantly (humidity and rain, you know). The INCREASE in temperature is clearly mechanistically and empirically dependent upon the increase in CO2. Methane, also from human activities, has a short atmos

    A warmer world with more CO2 would be a blessing, with more arable land and better crop yields.

    The warmer world will certainly be different from the world in which human civilizations evolved, changing regional climates throughout the world. Do you think the peoples of the equatorial regions and just north and south look forward to even warmer summers? Can you say for certain what an ice free Arctic will do to global climates?

    Your hypotheses that changes in the sun, El Nino and cloud cover are responsible for this bout of warming are not supported by the evidence. Can you supply the evidence that supports your hypotheses?

    What are the “natural brakes” on atmospheric CO2?

    You next turn to slurring climate scientists and their work, a common ploy of the anti-science right. When you don’t like the result you smear the messenger.

    You may be right that POS-elect trumpski may squelch the knowledge industry. Tyrants flourish best in darkness.

  7. drowningpuppies says:

    The INCREASE in temperature is clearly mechanistically and empirically dependent upon the increase in CO2.

    There you go again, little guy.
    Not one fact just the same old tired warmist agitprop psychobabble.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5099 access attempts in the last 7 days.